Disposed

Alwin Augustine v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2020Crl.MC/1710/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the final report in a matrimonial case involving sections 498A and 34 IPC where parties agreed to mediation. The court directed mediatory efforts within four months and deferred criminal proceedings scheduled.

What did the court decide?

Mediation initiated within 4 months; criminal trial deferred for 4 months; petition disposed of without quashing.

Alwin Augustine Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1710 OF 2020(C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 230/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I(FOREST OFFENCES),TPA

¶7

CRIME NO.349/2019 OF Karinkunnam Police Station , Idukki

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 ALWIN AUGUSTINE AGED 32 YEARS S/O.KURIAN AUGUSTINE, PYMPILLIL HOUSE, PLANTATION, KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA-685586.

¶10

2 KURIAN AUGUSTINE, PYMPILLIL HOUSE, PLANTATION, KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA-685586.

¶11

3 ELEENA AUGUSTINE, D/O.KURIAN AUGUSTINE, PYMPILLIL HOUSE, PLANTATION, KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA-685586.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARIMKUNNAM POLICE STATION, KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA-685586.

¶16

3 SIBY VARGHESE, 24 STEWART STREET, PASCOEVALE MELBOURNE, VICTORIA, 3044, AUSTRALIA.

¶17

4 EBEENA D/O SIBY VARGHESE, KUMBUKATTU HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT 24 STEWARD STREET, PASCOEVALE MELBOURNE,VICTORIA,3044,AUSTRALIA (IMPLEADED AS ADDL R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 4/8/20 IN CRL.MA 3/20)

¶18

Crl.MC.No.1710 OF 2020(C)

¶19

¶20

R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.GOPI

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No.1710 OF 2020(C)

¶25

¶26

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C. No.1710 of 2020

¶28

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶29

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2020

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The prayer in the aforecaptioned Criminal Miscellaneous case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is as follows :

¶32

“.....quash CC No. 230/2020 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha.”

¶33

Heard Sri.P.Babu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (A1 to A3), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1 & R2 and Sri.P.N.Gopi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

¶34

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 among the 3 accused in the instant Crime No.349/2019 of Karimkunnam Police Station, Idukki district for offences punishable under Secs. 498A and 34 of the IPC on the basis of the petition sent by the 3^rd respondent to the police authorities in that regard. The police after investigation has filed the impugned Annexure-A final report/charge sheet in the said Crime No.349/2019 of Karimkunnam Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of calendar case, CC No.230/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha for the abovesaid offences.

¶35

The 1^st petitioner herein (A1) is the husband of R4 and 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners (A2 and A3) are the father and sister respectively of the 1^st

¶36

Crl.MC.No.1710 OF 2020(C)

¶37

¶38

petitioner (A1).

¶39

The brief of the prosecution case is that the 4^th respondent herein and her parents are permanently settled in Australia and the 1^st petitioner was temporarily in Australia in connection with his higher studies and on the basis of a marriage proposal, the 4^th respondent had married the 1^st petitioner on 20.1.2019 in accordance with the RomanCatholic traditions and customs in a Church at Thodupuzha and that the couple had stayed in Kerala for about 10 days and that during the abovesaid period, when she was with her husband, the accused persons have treated her with cruelty and harassment and that they had demanded her to part with the fixed deposit of Rs.25 lakhs which was given to her by her father and had frequently harassed her for not parting with the money and had thereby the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences.

¶40

The counsel for the petitioners would point out that even going by the case of the 4^th respondent – lady defacto complainant, she had stayed in Kerala after the marriage only for a brief period of 10 days and that therefore, the allegations are false and baseless which have been made only to find out some reasons for dissolving the marriage etc. R3 herein is the father of R4. R3, R4 and the mother of R4 are now permanently settled in Australia.

¶41

Per contra, Sri.P.N.Gopi, learned counsel appearing for R3 and

¶42

Crl.MC.No.1710 OF 2020(C)

¶43

¶44

R4 would point out that no interference is called for and that the allegations in the impugned prosecution materials would disclose the commission of the alleged offences.

¶45

This Court had suggested to both parties that as the couple had stayed together only for about hardly 10 days, the parties may initially take sincere steps for mediatory efforts for resolution of the disputes through such mediatory process, if that is feasible and to ensure whether the parties are willing for the said course of action.

¶46

Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, both the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate appearing for R3 and R4 submitted that the respective parties are willing for such mediatory efforts. Petitioners 1 and 2 are now residing in Kerala and the 3^rd petitioner is the sister of the 1^st petitioner and she is permanently settled in London, whereas R3 and R4 are stated to be permanently settled in Australia. This Court has queried as to how the mediatory efforts could be effectuated, if the parties are living in different places.

¶47

Sri.P.Babu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would point out that the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and 4^th respondent was mooted through a common family friend, who is now in Australia and that another person, who is closed to both the families is now in Karimkunnam, near Thodupuzha and efforts have been taken by the

¶48

Crl.MC.No.1710 OF 2020(C)

¶49

¶50

petitioners through this common friend and relatives to ensure the mediatory process. Since, both parties are now willing for mediatory efforts, this Court is of the considered view that serious efforts should be put in by both sides to endeavour for mediatory settlement, instead of thrashing out their disputes in litigative proceedings. The submissions of the petitioners and respondents 3 & 4 that both of them are interested for mediatory efforts are recorded.

¶51

Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed :

¶52

1. Petitioners and respondents 3 & 4 may ensure that mediatory efforts are initiated and completed, without much delay, preferably within 3 months, at any rate, within an outer time limit of 4 months.

¶53

Both sides may find out the efficacious means and modalities for effectuating mediatory efforts and they may seek the help of the common friend and relatives in that regard and may also take recourse to video conferencing etc. if that is acceptable to both sides for expediting the process of mediation. If the mediation process is successful, then the parties may enter into an agreement in that regard and if the mediation process is so successful, then the petitioners will be at liberty to seek quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement at the appropriate stage.

¶54

3. If the mediation process is not successful, then the contentions on both sides are left open and liberty is accorded to the petitioners to work out their remedies in the manner known to law. As mentioned hereinabove, further proceedings in CC No.230/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha shall stand deferred for a period of 4 months.

¶55

The Registry will forward a certified copy of this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha, who is dealing with

¶56

Crl.MC.No.1710 OF 2020(C) 7

¶57

CC No.230/2020 for necessary information and compliance.

¶58

The Registry may return back the certified copies of Annexure-A final report in CC No.230/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha, Annexure-B FIR in Crime No.349/2019 and Annexure-C complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioners’ counsel, if a request in that regard is made. However, the photocopies of the said documents are placed in this original case file for the purpose of maintenance of records. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the controversy in any manner and all issues are left open in order to facilitate the process of mediatory settlement of disputes between the parties.

¶59

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous case will stand finally disposed of.

¶60

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶61

SKS

¶62

Crl.MC.No.1710 OF 2020(C)

¶63

¶64

APPENDIX

¶65

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶66

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.230/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THODUPUZHA DATED 30.12.2019. ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.349/2019 DATED 20.9.19. ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.9.2019.

Alwin Augustine v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alwin Augustine v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamshed Sheikh Vs State of Kerala

Deepa Govind Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs the State of Kerala

Nithin.K.R., Vs State of Kerala

Sajeevan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Abdu Nazar Nechikkadan Vs the State of Kerala