Allowed

Divine Ross v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Oct 2022Crl.MC/1455/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous matter sought quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 104 of 2020 regarding an allegation of cruelty under IPC. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing all further proceedings as the matter was amicably settled between parties, ensuring the ends of justice without affecting public interest.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C. No. 104 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy, against all accused stands quashed.

Divine Ross Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1455 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.980/2019 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CC 104/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,

¶7

CHALAKUDY

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶9

DIVINE ROSS,AGED 28 YEARS W/O.JOHN, ANIKKATTIL, C-815, SUMADHURA ANANDAM, BOREWELL ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE.

¶10

BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.980/2019 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.)

¶13

2 ELLSA JOSEPH, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.JOSEPH, KANICHAYI HOUSE, POTTA DESOM, PERAMBRA VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR - 673525.

¶14

ADDL.R3 DENSON S. ELINJICHAL S/O E JOSEPH SIMON, AGED 35 YEARS, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VSNL ROAD, KAKKNAD ERNAKULAM, KERALA – 682 030

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 1455 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

ADDL.R4 E JOSEPH SIMON , AGED 35 YEARS, S/O LATE JOSEPH ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VSNL ROAD, KAKKNAD ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682030

¶18

ADDL.R5 SIBEEN W/O E JOSEPH SIMON, AGED 58 YEARS, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VSNL ROAD, KAKKNAD ERNAKULAM, KERALA ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.05.2022 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2022

¶19

BY ADVS. SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ, P.P.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 1455 OF 2020

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy. During

¶25

the pendency of the above Crl.M.C, the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶26

The petitioner is the 4^th accused. The

¶27

additional respondents 3 to 5 are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶28

The offence alleged against the petitioner and

¶29

respondents 3 to 5 is punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

¶30

The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through

¶31

counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶32

I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel

¶33

for the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, Sri.C.Dheeraj Rajan, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

The averments in the petition as well as the

¶35

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 1455 OF 2020

¶37

affidavit sworn in by the 2^nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶38

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves

¶39

notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the

¶40

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 1455 OF 2020

¶42

case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶43

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing all further proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy. The offence in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶44

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy, as against all the accused hereby stands quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶47

¶48

CRL.MC NO. 1455 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1455/2020

¶51

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶52

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ALONG WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.980/2019 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶53

ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.104/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHALAKUDI.

¶54

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE RECITAL MADE AT THE STATION (OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT).

¶55

ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2019 IN WP(CRL).NO.140/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶56

ANNEXURE-V NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Divine Ross v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divine Ross 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Junaid Vs Rasiya K.P.

T. Sangamesan Vs State of Kerala

Sunith Kumar B. Vs Sreerekha K.

Gopalan Ezhuthassan Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Prasad S., Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh M.R Vs State of Kerala