Allowed

Soumya Raj, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2020Crl.MC/2470/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 alleging elopement. The court allowed the quashing application despite a co-accused, ruling that the dispute was settled and continuing proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court process.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C No.2470/2020 allowed; FIR and proceedings in Crime No.29/2020 quashed.

Soumya Raj, Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.MC.2470/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

Crl.MC.No.2470 OF 2020(G)

¶8

CRIME NO.29/2020 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

SOUMYA RAJ, AGED 33 YEARS W/O.RENJITH MOHAN, DESRA 84, SYMALA NIVAS, PETTAH VILLAGE, PERUTHANI WARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SMT.KEERTHI S. JYOTHI

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶14

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695.

¶15

3 RENJITH MOHAN, S/O.MOHAN, DESRA 84, SYMALA NIVAS, PETTAH VILLAGE, PERUMTHANI WARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.MC.2470/2020

¶21

¶22

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶23

----------------------------------------------CRL.M.C.No. 2470 of 2020

¶24

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2020

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.29 of 2020 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015. The allegation is that the petitioner, a married lady, had eloped with her paramour, abandoning her small child. The petitioner's husband, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. Annexure 3 affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent stating that he has sorted out the dispute with his wife and that the child was in his care and custody on 6.1.2020, the date on which the petitioner had left the house leaving the child behind.

¶27

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that there is one more accused in the crime and that he should also be made a party. It is submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent is amicably settled and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impleading of the other accused would only result in rekindling the issue and that, considering the peculiar circumstances under which the crime was registered, the Crl.M.C may be allowed without insisting for the other

¶29

CRL.MC.2470/2020

¶30

¶31

accused as a party.

¶32

I find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though, piecemeal quashing of proceedings at the instance of few among the accused is not to be entertained, the peculiar circumstances of this case call for a deviation from the normal practice.

¶33

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and that 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 no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶34

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure 1 FIR and the proceedings in Crime No.29 of 2020 of the Vanchiyoor Police Station is quashed.

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

Sd/-

vgs

CRL.MC.2470/2020

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CRIME NO.29/2020 DATED 06/01/2020 VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE XI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12/01/2020. ANNEXURE III ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT ENDORSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT THAT HE HAS SETTLED ALL THE ISSUES AND THE CRIME NO.29/2020 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION.

Soumya Raj, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumya Raj, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Suhail.P.H Vs Station House Officer

Vaisakh Jagadish Vs State of Kerala

Aswath A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh .a Vs State of Kerala

Fakrudeen Ali Ahamed Vs the State of Kerala

Abhimanyu K.K Vs State of Kerala