Allowed

Jain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2021Crl.MC/2179/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceeding in C.C.No.243/2012. Based on a final compromise affidavit filed by the respondents regarding matrimonial disputes and family settlement, the court held that continued prosecution would be an abuse of court process and ordered the quashing of all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.243/2012 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, are quashed.

Jain Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | 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. 2179 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 243/2012 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

¶7

MAGISTRATE ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

CRIME NO.766/2011 OF PETTA POLICE STATION

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶10

1 JAIN

¶11

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

¶12

2 KANI DEVADAS AGED 59 YEARS S/O. DEVADAS, PUSHPAVADI HOUSE, A-7, AISWARYA NAGAR, KESHAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004. 3 SUJATHA RAJAPPAN AGED 75 YEARS W/O. RAJAPPAN, KALAYANIKRISA 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, KOCHI - 682031.

¶15

2 ANURAJ RAJAPPAN AGED 41 YEARS S/O. RAJAPPAN, SREE NIVAS, T.C 2711, MARAPPALAM JUNCTION, PATTOM WARD, KOWADIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003. 3 ADDL.R3. SASIKALA, D/O. PANKAJAKSHI, SEENIVAS, TC 3/2711, MARAPPALAM JUNCTION, PATTOM WARD, KOWADIYAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003 [IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.11.2021 IN CRL.M.A.4/2021] BY ADVS. SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR R.LEELA

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

PP SANGEETHARAJ NR

¶18

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

¶19

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.2179 of 2021

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire further proceedings against the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 in C.C.No.243/2012 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which arose out of crime No.766/2011 of Petta Police Station, registered for the offence punishable u/s.188, 109, 294(b), 354, 324 and 341 of IPC.

¶24

It is alleged that the petitioners trespassed into the house of 2^nd respondent and abused him using filthy language and also assaulted him with a cane chair.

¶25

Second respondent is the son of the third petitioner and also the brother of the 1^st petitioner. Mother-in-law of the 2^nd respondent is impleaded as additional third respondent. Second respondent's marriage with the daughter of additional 3^rd respondent was solemnized on 3.9.2010. There was some matrimonial dispute between his wife - Sreedevi and the petitioners.

¶26

Adv. Sri. Arjun Sathish Kumar appeared for

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.2179 of 2021

¶28

¶29

respondents 2 and 3.

¶30

PWs 1 to 5 have already been examined. Subsequently

¶31

the parties arrived at a compromise. Annexure A is the copy of Final Report in the above crime. Affidavits of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents have been produced.

¶32

It has come out from the affidavits duly sworn in by the respondents 2 and 3 and the statement given by them to the SHO that the entire issues between the parties have been amicably settled they are also close relatives.

¶33

Since parties resolved the entire issues, continuance of the proceedings against them will be an abuse of process of court. Therefore, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.243/2012 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which arose out of crime No.766/2011 of Petta Police Station. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

¶36

shg

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.2179 of 2021

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2179/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT NUMBERED AS CC NO. 243 OF 2012 DATED 31.08.2011 SUBMITTED BY PETTA POLICE. Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.07.2021 SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED.

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