Allowed

Ratheesh Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2021Crl.MC/1414/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The Court held that since matrimonial issues were settled amicably, a divorce was granted, and the complainant opposed further proceedings, quashing was just and proper as the matter was purely private with no public interest involved.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 885/2017 arising out of Crime No. 296/2017 were quashed.

Ratheesh Nair Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1414 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 885/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 RATHEESH NAIR AGED 33 YEARS S/O.T.N.GOPINATHAN NAIR, RESMI BHAVAN, ELANTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 643.

¶10

2 GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 76 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, RESMI BHAVAN, ELANTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 643

¶11

3 VALSALA, AGED 67 YEARS W/O.T.N.GOPINATHAN NAIR, RESMI BHAVAN, ELANTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 643 BY ADVS.

¶12

P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

2 SRUTHI MOHANA ROY AGED 26 YEARS

¶16

D/O.K.R.MOHANA ROY, IKKARA NARAYANA VILASOM, MALAKKUNNAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 535. BY ADV G.N.DEEPA

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

PP RENJIT GEORGE,SR GP

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2021,

¶20

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.1414 of 2021

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.885/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising out of crime No.296/2017 of Aranmula Police Station, which is registered for the offences punishable u/s.498(A), 406 r/w. 34 IPC.

¶25

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the above crime

¶26

and the 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant and the wife of the 1^st petitioner.

¶27

It is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire matrimonial issues between the parties have been amicably settled. Annexure AI is the copy of Final Report in crime No.296/2017. Annexure-A2 is the copy of memorandum of agreement executed in mediation in O.P.No.521/2019 of Family Court, Thiruvalla. It is further reported that Annexure-A2 agreement was recorded and divorce was granted. Annexure-A3 is the copy of the receipt alleged to have been issued by the 2^nd respondent - defacto complaint for receiving the 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the first petitioner and also D.D. for Rs.1 lakh. Annexure-A4 is the affidavit duly sworn in by the

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.1414 of 2021

¶29

¶30

defacto complainant. In the affidavit also she had reiterated

¶31

about the receipt of gold ornaments and money apart from Rs.2 lakhs which was deposited by the first petitioner before the Family Court. She further categorically admitted that she received the gold ornaments and money as agreed in the mediation agreement in O.P.No.521/2019 of Family Court, Thiruvalla.

¶32

Adv.Smt.G.N.Deepa filed vakalath on behalf of the defacto complainant.

¶33

Learned Public Prosecutor produced report of the SHO along with copy of the signed statement of the defacto complainant in which she has categorically stated that she has no objection in quashing the further proceedings against the petitioners in the above crime.

¶34

It has come out from the records that the parties have amicably settled the entire matrimonial issues between them and a decree of divorce was also passed separating the marital relationship of the first petitioner and the defacto complainant.

¶35

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012 (10) SCC 303 : 2012 KHC 4530) a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 482 of

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.1414 of 2021

¶37

¶38

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 held that criminal cases having civil flavour and arising from financial merchantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes where wrong is private or personal in nature can be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.

¶39

Since the parties have amicably settled the entire issues, there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners and further continuance of the proceedings against them will be an abuse of process of law. No public interest is involved and the issue is purely private in nature. Therefore, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.885/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising out of crime No.296/2017 of Aranmula Police Station. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

In the result, Crl.M.C. stands allowed.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA

JUDGE

shg

Crl.M.C.No.1414 of 2021

¶46

¶47

	APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1414/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.296 OF 2017 OF THE ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, PATHAHAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN MEDIATION IN OP NO.521 OF 2019 OF THE THIRUVALLA FAMILY COURT, DATED 19.01.2021.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND AMOUNT DATED 03.03.2021.
ANNEXURE A4	ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN AND SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.03.3021.

Ratheesh Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh Nair 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

Johnson Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala

Binny Vs State of Kerala

Abraham v.K., Vs State of Kerala

Ridhvana Abdul Karim Vs State of Kerala

Irshad, Vs State of Kerala

Sahal K.P. Vs State of Kerala