The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners initiated by their mother-in-law. Finding the complaint filed after a long delay due to matrimonial fallout and injuries superficial, the Court ruled trial was futile and an abuse of process.
Further proceedings in C.C. No. 766 of 2017 before the Magistrate Court are 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 MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 766/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1HRIDYA RAMESH
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.RAMESH, RESIDING AT SREE RAM,
NEDUNKOTTUKAVU ROAD, ARANGETTUPARAMB,
ERANHOLI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2RAMESHAN V.,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.NANU (LATE), RESIDING AT SREE RAM,
NEDUNKOTTUKAVU ROAD, ARANGETTUPARAMB,
ERANHOLI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.2 LEELA BALAN, AGED 70 YEARS W/O.BALAN, VIVEK BHAVAN, POOVATHINKEEZHIL, CHITTARIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.BY ADVS. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT.E.U.DHANYABY ADV SANGEETHARAJ N.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
2
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.766 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba.
3
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
4
them as per Annexure A1 complaint.
5
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
in the year 2020, this Crl.M.C. has been filed by them.
State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (AIR 1977 SC 1489) wherein it has been held that, the High Court is entitled to quash the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require it.
531) it has been held by the Apex Court while dealing with Section 482 that if any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be justified in
6
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
Others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Others (AIR 1992 SC 604 =
1992 SCC (Cri) 426) is relevant to quote which reads thus:
In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
7
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused
8
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused
9
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
10
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
petitioner herein. However, the matter is now pending in appeal before this Court. So I do not want to make any further comments upon the same.
11
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
the defacto complainant as per a mediation settlement and it is thereafter that the entire incident happened. There is long delay of about 8 months for filing the complaint, which is not at all explained by the defacto complainant. So, the learned counsel for the petitioners has got a specific contention that without conducting any proper inquiry, the summons was issued to the petitioners in the above case.
12
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
Class Magistrate Court, Koothuparamba.
In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.766 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Kuthuparamba is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA
JUDGE
nkr
13
CRL.MC NO. 1533 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1533/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT KUTHUPARAMBA
DATED 21.02.2017.
ANNEXURE A2A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE JFCM, KUTHUPARAMBA IN CRIME
NO.562/2016 OF KANNAVAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.195/2015
OF THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY.
ANNEXURE A4A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.P.NO.195/2015 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY.
ANNEXURE A5A TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM
WOUND CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.766/2017 OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KUTHUPARAMBA.
ANNEXURE A6 & A6(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE UNDER
THE RTI ACT AND THE ANSWER RECEIVED FROM
THE KANNAVAM POLICE STATION DATED
05.02.2020.
ANNEXURE A7A TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.3961/2018 IN CC
766/2017 OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA.
ANNEXURE A8A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2018
IN CMP NO.3961/2018 IN CC 766/2017 OF THE
HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings instituted with a long delay and ulterior motive against petitioners due to family mediation dispute should be quashed as abuse of process of court.
Whether continuation of the trial would result in conviction given the superficial injuries and lack of substantiation for the complaint.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka v. L. MuniswamyReferred¶38
State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (AIR 1977 SC 1489) · Who else cites this
Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.Referred¶39
Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. ((2008) 12 SCC 531) · Who else cites this
State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and OthersExplained¶44
State of Haryana and Others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Others (AIR 1992 SC 604 = 1992 SCC (Cri) 426) · Who else cites this
Hidya Ramesh
Rameshan V.
State of Kerala
Leela Balan
M.R. Anitha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court