Allowed

Jinu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2020Crl.MC/2399/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC regarding a matrimonial dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the dispute was amicably resolved and the complainant withdrew her grievance, continuing the trial amounted to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.381/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam are quashed.

Jinu Vs the State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.MC.No.2399 OF 2020(H) ..1..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶6

Crl.MC.No.2399 OF 2020(H)

¶7

AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC 381/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM

¶8

CRIME NO.208/2019 OF Ottapalam Police Station , Palakkad

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

1 JINU

¶11

AGED 30 YEARS

¶12

S/O. KUMARAN, POOTHIRI HOUSE, AKALOOR P O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

2 GANGADHARAN @ MANU AGED 33 YEARS

¶14

S/O. KUMARAN, POOTHIRI HOUSE, AKALOOR P O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶16

RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

2 SRUHI AGED 20 YEARS D/O. MANIKANDAN @ KANNAN, KIZHAKKUMURI HOUSE, VARODE P O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶19

R2 BY ADV. T.U.ANUKRISHNA-K/920/2014

¶20

SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No.2399 OF 2020(H) ..2..

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Dated this the 18th day of December 2020

¶25

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.208/2019 registered at the Ottappalam Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.381/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is the 1^st petitioner’s wife and is arrayed as the 2^nd respondent herein. Annexure-B affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that the matrimonial dispute, which had compelled her to submit the complaint leading to registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and she is living with the petitioner and hence, has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶26

Crl.MC.No.2399 OF 2020(H) ..3..

¶27

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶28

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is

¶29

Crl.MC.No.2399 OF 2020(H) ..4..

¶30

no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶31

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The

¶32

proceedings in C.C.No.381/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam is quashed.

¶33

SB/18/12/2020

¶34

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶35

Crl.MC.No.2399 OF 2020(H) ..5..

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/ CHARGE IN CRIME NO.208/2019 OF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION.

¶39

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Jinu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jinu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robin Vs the State of Kerala

Anjalidev, Vs Arun

E.v.Ramakrishna Kurup Vs Gopinathan Pillai

M/S Sai Associates Vs State of Kerala

Sai Associates Vs State of Kerala

M/S Sai Associates Vs State of Kerala