Allowed

Jain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2021Crl.MC/2156/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala in a criminal miscellaneous petition quashed further proceedings against four accused persons accused under Sections 498A, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC. The court held that matrimonial issues were amicably settled out of court with the complainant residing with accused persons and no objection to quashing was raised.

What did the court decide?

Quashed entire proceedings in C.C. 485/2011 on file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

Jain 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

MONDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2156 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 485/2011 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

¶7

MAGISTRATE ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶9

1 JAIN AGED 46 YEARS S/O. SUJATHA RAJAPPAN, KALYANAKRIHNA VEEDU, ORUVATHILKOTTA, TC NO.79/377, KADAKKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

¶10

2 KANI DEVADAS AGED 59 YEARS S/O. DEVADAS, PUSHPAVADI HOUSE, A-7, AISWARYA NAGAR, KESHAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶11

3 REJI AGED 51 YEARS S/O. SUJATHA RAJAPPAN, PUSHPAVADI HOUSE, AISWARYA NAGAR, KESHAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM VILLAGE, KESHAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

4 SUJATHA RAJAPPAN AGED 75 YEARS W/O. RAJAPPAN, KALAYANIKRISHA HOUSE, TC 79/377(1), ORUVATHILKOTTA, KADAKKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004. BY ADVS. PREEJA V.P. GEORGE BRISTON V.P.PRASANTH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 SREEDEEVI AGED 34 YEARS D/O. SREE RAMAN, KALYANIKRISHNA HOUSE, TC 79/377(1), A33-NPP LANE, ORUVATHIL KOTTA, KADAKKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695029. BY ADV SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2021,

¶16

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2021

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire further proceedings against the petitioners/accused no.1 to 4 in C.C.485/20211 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in crime No.316/2011 of Petta Police Station, which has been registered for the offences punishable u/s.498(A), 120(B) r/w.34 of IPC.

¶21

According to the petitioners they have settled the entire matrimonial issues with the defacto complainant. Second respondent – defacto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the 4^th petitioner.

¶22

Annexure A is the copy of Final Report. The affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto complainant has also been produced.

¶23

Adv. Sri.Ajrun Sathish Kumar appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant and reports about the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor produced copy of the report of the SHO along with the signed statement of the defacto

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2021

¶26

¶27

complainant.

¶28

It has come out from the affidavit duly sworn in by the defacto complainant as well as the signed statement of the defacto complainant given to the SHO that the entire matrimonial issues between the parties have been amicably settled out of court and they are residing together and she has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶29

Since the entire matrimonial issues between the parties have been amicably settled out of court, 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 court. No public interest is involved and the issue is purely personal in nature. Therefore, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.485/20211 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in crime No.316/2011 of Petta Police Station. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

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

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

shg

Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2021

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2156/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY FINAL REPORT NUMBERED AS CC NO.485 OF 2011 DATED 14.05.2011 SUBMITTED BY PETTA POLICE.

Jain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jain 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

Shoban Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Abu Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Sheethal C.M. Vs State of Kerala

Prameela Kumari Vs Sunila Roy

Jain Vs State of Kerala