Allowed

Prameela Kumari v. Sunila Roy

Kerala HC29 Nov 2021Crl.MC/944/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellany filing to quash criminal proceedings. The petitioners challenged a complaint regarding harassment and criminal intimidation in C.C. No. 1380/2013. The court allowed the challenge on the grounds that a settlement was reached between the parties and no public interest was involved.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire proceedings in crime No.567/2013 pending as C.C.No.1380/2013 against the petitioners.

Prameela Kumari Vs Sunila Roy — Writ and Judicial Review | 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. 944 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1380/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS ,KATTAKADA

¶8

CRIME NO.567/2013 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 2:

¶10

1 PRAMEELA KUMARI AGED 49 YEARS D/O.BABY SAROJAM, VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE, GILTRY DESHOM, PEYAD, CHIRAYKKONAM LANE, SAROJBAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573.

¶11

2 PRAFULLA CHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.BALGANGADHARAN NAIR, VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE, GILTRY DESHOM, PEYAD, CHIRAYKKONAM LANE, SAROJBAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573. BY ADV M.R.SASITH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:

¶13

1 SUNILA ROY AGED 47 YEARS D/O.THANKAMMA, KOCHUPARAMBIL VEETIL, CHIRAYKKONAM LANE, PEYAD P.O., VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573.

¶14

2 ROY SEBASTIAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O.DEVASSIA, KOCHUPARAMBIL VEETIL, CHIRAYKKONAM LANE, PEYAD P.O., VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573.

¶15

3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695571. BY ADV VIDYA G NAIR

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

PP RENJIT GEORGE, SR GP

¶18

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

¶19

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.944/2021

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire further proceedings against the petitioners in crime No.567/2013 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.1380/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada, registered for the offences punishable u/s.451, 294(b), 506(ii) r/w. 34 IPC.

¶24

Petitioners are accused No.1 & 2 in the above crime. First respondent is the defacto complainant and second respondent is her husband.

¶25

It is alleged that out of previous enmity between accused No.1 and the husband of the defacto complainant, on 25.07.2013 at about 4 p.m accused No.1 abused and threatened the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that accused persons forcefully entered the compound of the defacto complainant and abused her and intimidated them aiming with a cricket bat and also abused her using filthy language, thereby the accused committed the offence aforementioned.

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.944/2021

¶27

¶28

Annexure AI is the copy of FIR in the above crime. Annexure A2 is the copy of Final Report. Annexures A3 is the affidavit sworn in by the 1^st respondent – defacto complainant and A4 is the affidavit sworn in by the second respondent, the husband of the defacto complainant.

¶29

Adv.Sri.Vidya G. Nair appeared on behalf of first and second respondents and reported about the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor produced statement of the SHO, Malayinkeezhu Police Station as well as the copy of the signed statement of the defacto complainant.

¶31

It has come out from Annexure A3 and A4 affidavits as well as the copy of signed statement of the defacto complainant given to the SHO that the parties have amicably settled the entire issues and they are not willing to prosecute the matter further. They are also close neighbours.

¶32

Since the parties have amicably settled the entire issues 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

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.944/2021

¶34

¶35

private in nature. Therefore, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash the entire proceedings in crime No.567/2013 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.1380/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

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

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA

JUDGE

shg

Crl.M.C.No.944/2021

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 944/2021

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.567/2013 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.1380/2013 IN CRIME NO.567/2013. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Prameela Kumari v. Sunila Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prameela Kumari v. Sunila Roy

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

Jain Vs State of Kerala

Jain Vs State of Kerala