Allowed

George T.A v. Gayathri

Kerala HC24 Nov 2020Crl.MC/3113/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, treating the dispute as settled by the de facto complainant's affidavit and noting no public interest, held that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No. 290 of 2020 registered at Aluva East Police Station are quashed.

George T.A Vs Gayathri — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3113 OF 2020(H)

¶6

CRIME NO.290/2020 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

GEORGE T.A AGED 49 YEARS S/O AUGUSTINE,THACHERIKUDY HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU BHAGAM,ERUMATHALA.P.O, CHOORNIKKARA VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683112.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 GAYATHRI AGED 18 YEARS D/O.JAYACHANDRAN,PERINGHATT HOUSE, NEAR ST.SEBASTIAN CHURCH,ASOKAPURAM KARA,CHOORNIKKARA.P.O, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683106.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. C.DEEPA

¶14

SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crmc 3113/2020

V.G.ARUN, J.

=========================== Crl.M.C.No.3113 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2020

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.290 of 2020 registered at the Aluva East Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 294(b) of IPC. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is the 1^st respondent. Annexure A3 affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent stating that the dispute is resolved and that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶22

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

¶23

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 1^st 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

¶24

Crmc 3113/2020

¶25

¶26

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.

¶27