Allowed

Dr.Ashak P.P. v. Dr.Anila Karunakaran

Kerala HC18 Oct 2022Crl.MC/4289/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner. It held that the dispute was settled via mediation for the related Domestic Violence case, and continuing the criminal trial despite the agreed withdrawal was an abuse of court process.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.2799 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur are quashed.

Dr.Ashak P.P. Vs Dr.Anila Karunakaran — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4289 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.107/2016 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION KANNUR, KANNUR CC 2799/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,

¶7

KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

DR.ASHAK P.P. S/O.LATE P.P.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, ROHINI, KRISHNAMENON HOUSING COMPLEX, NR.GOVT. WOMENS COLLEGE, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1 DR.ANILA KARUNAKARAN D/O.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, ROHINI, KRISHNAMENON HOUSING COMPLEX, NR.GOVT. WOMENS COLLEGE, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR, PIN- 670 003.

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031.

¶15

BY SRI.G.SUDHEER, P.P.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 4289 OF 2018

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further

¶22

proceedings in C.C.No.2799 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur (for short 'the court below').

¶23

The petitioner is the sole accused. The 1^st respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶24

The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

¶25

Another case was pending against the petitioner before the court below as M.C.No.12 of 2017, which has been instituted under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The said case was referred to mediation and at the mediation, the entire dispute between the parties was settled. On the basis of the settlement, M.C.No.12 of 2017 was withdrawn. Annexure-A4 is the order in M.C.No.12 of 2017. Annexure-A2 is the

¶26

¶27

CRL.MC NO. 4289 OF 2018

¶28

mediation agreement, which led to Annexure-A4. As per the terms of the mediation agreement, the undivided right of the petitioner over a joint property stood in the name of the petitioner and the 1^st respondent was agreed to be released in favour of the first respondent herein. Annexure-A3 would show that the said condition has been complied with. Clause 3 in the mediation agreement is that M.C.No.12 of 2017 will be withdrawn. It has also been complied with. In Clause 4, it is stated that C.C.No.2799 of 2016 pending on the file of the court

¶29

below has also been settled and the 1^st respondent has agreed to give evidence in the said case in terms of the compromise. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent is not complying the said term and now proceeding with C.C.No.2799 of 2016. It is in these circumstances, he has approached this Court to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.2799 of 2016 pending on the files of the court below, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 4289 OF 2018

¶32

I have heard Shri.Rajesh Sukumaran K., the

¶33

learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Even though notice has been served to the 1 st respondent, there is no appearance.

¶34

A reading of Annexures-A2 to A4 would show that the entire dispute between the parties are settled at mediation and as per the terms of the settlement, the petitioner herein has assigned his undivided right over a

¶35

joint property stood in his and the 1^st respondent, in favour of the first respondent. M.C.No.12 of 2017 was also withdrawn as per the terms of the settlement. But the 1^st respondent failed to comply one of the terms of the settlement that she will withdraw C.C.No.2799 of 2016.

¶36

In a case decided by the Apex Court [ Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others (2005) 3 SCC 299] in a divorce petition, the husband and the wife entered into a compromise whereby both of them agreed for

¶37

¶38

CRL.MC NO. 4289 OF 2018

¶39

a consent decree for divorce. They have also agreed to withdraw all criminal and civil complaints filed against each other. Thereafter, the Family Court granted a divorce decree u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act dissolving the marriage by mutual consent. However, the wife did not take any steps to withdraw the criminal proceeding pending against the husband u/s 498A, 323 and 506 of IPC. The husband approached the High Court to quash the proceedings. The Apex court quashed the proceedings as the same was a matter which was agreed to while entering into compromise by the parties. The dictum laid down in the said case squarely applies to the facts of this case.

¶40

Considering the entire facts and circumstances,

¶41

I am of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.2799 of 2016 on the files

¶42

CRL.MC NO. 4289 OF 2018

¶43

¶44

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur

¶45

are hereby quashed.

¶46

The Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶49

¶50

CRL.MC NO. 4289 OF 2018

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4289/2018

¶53

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶54

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.107/2016 OF KANNUR VANITHA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT FROM THE MEDIATION SUB CENTRE, KANNUR. ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.2990/2017 DATED 28.11.2017 OBTAINED FROM THE S.R.O, KANNUR. ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C 12/2017 DATED 03.01.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1, KANNUR.

Dr.Ashak P.P. v. Dr.Anila Karunakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ashak P.P. v. Dr.Anila Karunakaran

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

Aakash Simon Mohan, Vs State of Kerala

Jahangeer P.T Vs State of Kerala

Usama Vs State of Kerala

Rejitha.I Vs State of Kerala

Dr.S.Sethunath Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala