The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A IPC, citing the settlement of the matrimonial dispute and lack of public interest.
Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.681/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg.
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
MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.960 OF 2020(H)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 681/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG
CRIME NO.21/2019 OF Chandera Police Station , Kasargod
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUDHEESH .A AGED 39 YEARS S/O. N.KUNHIKRISHNAN, KARAPPATH, POST PILICODE,TRIKAIPUR (VIA), KASARGODE DISTRICT,PIN-671 310
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018
2 REVATHY M.
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O. P.MADHAVAN, SARANGA, CHERKKAPPARA, PAKAM P.O., BEKAL FORT (VIA), HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGODE DISTRICT,PIN-671 316
R2 BY ADV. SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.960 OF 2020(H) ..2..
ORDER
Dated this the 5th day of October 2020
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.21/2019 registered at the Chandera Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.681/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is the petitioner’s wife and is arrayed as the 2nd respondent herein. Annexure-4 affidavit has been filed by 2nd respondent stating that the matrimonial dispute, which had compelled her to submit the complaint leading to registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably as evidenced by Annexure-A3 agreement and she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.
Crl.MC.No.960 OF 2020(H) ..3..
who, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 2nd 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
Crl.MC.No.960 OF 2020(H) ..4..
no impediment in granting the relief sought.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.681/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg is
quashed.
SB/05/10/2020
Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Crl.MC.No.960 OF 2020(H) ..5..
APPENDIXPETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.21/2019 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT
ANNEXURE-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.21/2019 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 10.01.2020 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.01.2020 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for matrimonial offences can be quashed upon settlement and absence of grievance.
Whether continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabFollowed¶29
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶29
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SUDHEESH .A
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
REVATHY M.
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.G.ARUN
Parties & counsel
