Allowed

Bijukumar.S.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2021Crl.MC/1539/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 498A IPC and Juvenile Justice Act arising from domestic violence allegations, as the parties had settled and a divorce decree had been passed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case allowing the petitioners, and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C. No.3358/2020 arising out of Crime No.644/2019 were quashed.

Bijukumar.S.S Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1539 OF 2021

¶6

(TO QUASH ANNEXURE-II FINAL REPORT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC 3358/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAKADA, IN CRIME NO.644/2019 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE

¶7

STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.)

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶9

1 BIJUKUMAR.S.S, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. SANKARAPILLAI, IRAKATHU VEEDU, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 512

¶10

2 VIJITHRA ALIAS ASWATHY, AGED 34 YEARS D/O.SHEELAKUMARI, IRAKATHU VEEDU, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 512

¶11

3 INDRAJITH, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. SUBRAMANYAM, IRAKATHU VEEDU, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR VILLAG, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 512

¶12

4 SHEELAKUMARI, AGED 60 YEARS W/O. SANKARAPILLAI, IRAKATHU VEEDU, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 512

¶13

BY ADV SAMPATH V. TOMS

¶14

Cr.M.C.No.1539 of 2021

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARANALLOR POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 644 OF 2019), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031

¶18

2 SANJA .M.G AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. GEETHA, PANAKALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU AYAYIL, ARUVIPPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 126 BY ADV AMBROSE JUDE DCRUZ

¶19

PP SANGEETHARAJ N R

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Cr.M.C.No.1539 of 2021

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2021

¶25

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the

¶26

entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.3358/2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada, which arise out of Crime No.644/2019 of Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 509, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶27

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.644/2019. 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant who is none other than the wife of the 1^st petitioner.

¶28

Annexure-I is the certified copy of the FIR and Annexure-II is the certified copy of the final report in the above stated crime. Annexure-III is the affidavit duly sworn in by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant.

¶29

Adv.Ambrose Jude Dcruz, appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant and reports about the settlement arrived

¶30

Cr.M.C.No.1539 of 2021

¶31

¶32

at between the parties.

¶33

Learned Public Prosecutor produced the copy of the report of the SHO, Maranalloor Police Station, dated 21.3.2021, along with the copy of the statement of the defacto complainant.

¶34

Annexure-VI is the affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto complainant dated 26.7.2021.

¶35

Copy of the judgment in O.P.(HMA) No.1649/2020

¶36

dated 09.8.2020 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has been produced as Annexure-VII. It will prove that decree of divorce has been passed. It is reported that 1^st petitioner and defacto complainant are now living separate.

¶37

Since, the entire issues between the parties have been settled and the defacto complainant is not intending to proceed with the case against the petitioners, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of court. Hence, I don't find any impediment in quashing the further proceedings against the petitioners in

¶38

Cr.M.C.No.1539 of 2021

¶39

¶40

the above crime.

¶41

In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed, and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C. No.3358/2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada, which arise out of Crime No.644/2019 of Maranalloor Police Station, is hereby quashed.

¶42

Hence, the Crl.M.C. allowed as above.

Sd/M.R.ANITHA

JUDGE

SMF

Cr.M.C.No.1539 of 2021

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1539/2021

¶49

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

¶50

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 644/2019 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14.08.2019.

¶51

ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 644/2019 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06.10.2020.

¶52

ANNEXURE III THE AFFIDAVIT (IN ORIGINAL), SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (DE FACTO COMPLAINANT) DATED 10.02.2021.

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

PA TO JUDGE

Bijukumar.S.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijukumar.S.S 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Velayudhan Nair @ Sasthamangalam Mohanan Vs Dr.B.Sandhya, I.P.S.

Mathew Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Athira Augustine Vs State of Kerala

Manoharan, Vs Sushama

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala