The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute case after reviewing the gravity of offences, the nature of injuries, and an affidavit from the complainant stating the dispute was resolved and the request for separation.
Proceedings in C.C. 1161/2019 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thrissur were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.4776 OF 2020(F)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1161/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.684/2020 OF Nedupuzha Police Station , Thrissur
PETITIONERS:
1 SUNIL VIJAYAN P.K. AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYAN P.K, PARETHEKKETHIL HOUSE, KALKOONTHAL, UDUMBANCHOLA, IRATTAYAR, IDUKKI - 685514.
2 VIJAYAN P.K, S/O. KUNJIKUTTAN, PARETHEKKETHIL HOUSE, KALKOONTHAL, UDUMBANCHOLA, IRATTAYAR, IDUKKI - 685514.
BY ADV. SRI.K.AMAR RAGH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
2 VARALAKSHMI M.S AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. LATE SREEKUMAR PULIKKAL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O, NEDUPUZHA THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680026.
R2 BY ADV. MAHIN PRABHAKARAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN
PP RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crmc 4776/20
2
V.G.ARUN, J.
=========================== Crl.M.C.No.4776 of 2020
=========================== Dated this the 17th day of November, 2020
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.684 of 2020
registered at the Nedupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Section 498(A), 354, 323, 506 of IPC , now pending as C.C 1161/2019 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Thrissur. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is the 2nd respondent. Annexure A3 affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the matrimonial dispute is resolved, the parties have decided to separate and that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.
Crmc 4776/20
3
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.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
lgk
Crmc 4776/20
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 FREE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT RECEIVED TO THE ACCUSED IN CC 1161/2019 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.II, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR IN OP NO.560 OF 2020.
ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.03.2020.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 354, 323, and 506 of IPC should be quashed in light of the settlement and affidavit from the complainant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶29
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶29
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Vijayan P.K.
Vijayan P.K.
State of Kerala
Varalakshmi M.S
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
