Allowed

Cleetus v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Nov 2020Crl.MC/4730/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498(A) IPC. The court held that since the dispute was settled and the complainant had no grievance, continuation of proceedings would abuse the process of the court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. 2391/2017 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Thrissur are quashed.

Cleetus Vs the State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4730 OF 2020(A)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 2391/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO.637/2017 OF Nedupuzha Police Station , Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 CLEETUS

¶10

AGED 33 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM DESOM, KOORKENCHERY VILLAGE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., PIN-680027, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2 MARY FRANCIS

¶12

AGED 59 YEARS W/O. FRANCIS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM DESOM, KOORKENCHERY VILLAGE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., PIN-680027, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

3 RICHARDS

¶14

AGED 31 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM DESOM, KOORKENCHERY VILLAGE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., PIN-680027, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SRI.N.M.MADHU SRI.P.P.HARRIS SMT.C.S.RAJANI

¶17

RESPONDENTS:

¶18

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

¶19

2 NIVIYA AGED 29 YEARS D/O. JOY, CHITTINAPPILLY HOUSE, THURAVUR P.O., ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA, PIN-680 572.

¶20

R2 BY ADV. T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

Crmc 4730/2020

PP RAMESH CHAND

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crmc 4730/2020

V.G.ARUN, J.

=========================== Crl.M.C.No.4730 of 2020

¶29

=========================== Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2020

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.637 of 2017 registered at the Nedupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC , now pending as C.C 2391/2017 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Thrissur. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is the 2^nd respondent. Annexure A3 affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that the matrimonial dispute is resolved and that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶32

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

¶33

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by 2^nd 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

¶34

Crmc 4730/2020

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C 2391/2017 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Thrissur is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

lgk

Crmc 4730/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOCOY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.637/2017 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY. ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.637/2017 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY. ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Cleetus v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cleetus 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subeesh Vs Amritha

Sheeba Vs State of Kerala

Akif.N., Vs the State of Kerala

Sanoop Vs State of Kerala

Mini Avikkal Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan Ambliyadan Vs State of Kerala