Allowed

Sruthy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2022Crl.MC/3611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous case seeking quashing of proceedings against accused in a private dispute involving matrimonial issues. The court held that settlement between parties made further prosecution a nullity and exercised jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crl.M.C. No.3611 of 2022 and all further proceedings pursuant to FIR No.311/2022 including pending C.C. No.729/2022 were quashed against petitioners.

Sruthy Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3611 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.311/2022 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶8

1 SRUTHY

¶9

AGED 26 YEARS
KUNNAMPILLY HOUSE KUZHIKANI KODAKARA
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680684

¶10

2 MOHANAN @ VIDHYADHARAN AGED 58 YEARS KUNNAMPILLY HOUSE KUZHIKANI KODAKARA THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680684

¶11

3SUDHA
AGED 52 YEARS
WIFE OF VIDHYADHARAN KUNNAMPILLY HOUSE
KUZHIKANI KODAKARA THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680684

¶12

BY ADV SAIJO HASSAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

¶15

2RAHUL
AGED 30 YEARS
SON OF BHASI POTTANATTU HOUSE,
MARATHAKKARA DESOM MARATHAKKARA P O,
PIN – 680306

¶16

ADDL.3BINDHU
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O BHASI, POTTANATTU HOUSE,
MARATHAKKARA DESOM,
MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE,
MARATHAKKARA P.O
THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶17

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 3611 OF 2022

¶19

ADDL.4BHASI
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN, POTTANATTU HOUSE,
MARATHAKKARA DESOM, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE,
MARATHAKKARA P.O
THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.12.2022 IN CRL
MA 1/22 IN CRL MC 3611/2022

¶20

BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SURESH P.G.
SAIJO HASSAN
ASWATHY KRISHNAN(K/000603/2017)
ADV SREEJA V -SR PP

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 3611 OF 2022

¶23

3

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.311/2022 of Ollur Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 294(b), 384, 385, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure 1 is the First Information Report. It is now reported that, investigation in this case is already completed and a final report has been submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Thrissur and the same is now pending as C.C. No.729/2022. The respondents 2 to 4 are the victims of the crime. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 First Information Report.

¶26

Heard Sri. Saijo Hassan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Suresh P.G., learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

¶27

The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the respondents 2 to 4 have sworn Annexure 2 to Annexure 4 affidavits respectively.

¶28

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 3611 OF 2022

¶30

The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the respondents 2 to 4 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the respondents 2 to 4 have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.

¶31

Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and

¶32

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 3611 OF 2022

¶34

Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.

¶35

It is true that among the offences Section 384 and 385 are

¶36

included. However, it is seen from the records that, the entire dispute

¶37

stemmed up from a matrimonial dispute between the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. Now the parties have settled all their dispute and they have separated. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶38

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure 1 First Information Report in Crime No.311/2022 of Ollur Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto including the proceedings in

¶39

C.C. No.729/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Thrissur, as against the petitioners are quashed

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶42

scs

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 3611 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3611/2022

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 311/2022 OF
OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
DATED 07.03.2022
Annexure 2TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.05.2022
Annexure 3TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 3RD
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT
Annexure 4TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 4TH
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT

Sruthy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sruthy 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

Thomas John Vs State of Kerala

Nabeesa @ Ithatha Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

C.Sukumar Vs State of Kerala