Allowed

Scaria Jose v. Aswathy Scaria

Kerala HC13 Jan 2023Crl.MC/103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash a final report in a dowry dispute arising under Section 498-A IPC. The petitioners, being the accused, successfully argued that the matter was amicably settled between the parties. Invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. and following Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the dispute was personal and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous case allowed; Final Report in C.C. No. 1061/2021 quashed.

Scaria Jose Vs Aswathy Scaria — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 103 OF 2023

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1061/2021 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM

¶5

PETITIONERS/ 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4 th ACCUSED:

¶6

1 SCARIA JOSE AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, SILVER OAK ,KAILASAPPARA ESTATE, PARATHODE, NEDUMKANDAM, KAILASANADU P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685553

¶7

2 NISHA MATHEW AGED 49 YEARS, D/O N.S. JOSE, POTTAMKULAM HOUSE, THACHANGAL , ATTUPPARA, MAILADUMPARA, KAILASANADU P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685553

¶8

3 MATHEWS AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.K.S.JOSE, POTTAMKULAM HOUSE, THACHANGAL , ATTUPPARA, MAILADUMPARA, KAILASANADU P.O., IDUKKI-, PIN - 685553

¶9

4 CICILLEYAMMA JOSE AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.JOSE, NJAVALLIL HOUSE, KAILASAPARA ESTATE, NEDUMKANDAM, PARATHODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685553

¶10

BY ADVS. P.SATHISAN DONA AUGUSTINE

¶11

CRL.MC NO. 103/2023

¶12

-:2:-

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶14

1 ASWATHY SCARIA AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.MATHEW GEORGE, FLAT NO.9D,WHITE WATERS,THEVARA FERRY, THEVARA P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682013

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶16

T.V NEEMA SR.P.P

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 103/2023

¶19

-:3:-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Dated this the 13 th day of January, 2023

¶22

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.1061/2021 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶23

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The 1^st respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶24

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶25

An affidavit sworn in by the 1^st respondent is also produced.

¶26

I have heard Sri.P.Sathisan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 1^st respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 103/2023

¶29

-:4:-

¶30

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.

¶31

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 notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶32

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 103/2023

¶34

by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1. The offences in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the

¶35

Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶36

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. Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.1061/2021 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam hereby stands quashed.

¶37

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶38

APA

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 103/2023

¶40

-:6:-

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 103/2023

¶42

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶43

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.1266/2021 DATED 16.01.2021 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION Annexure A2 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 19.12.2022.

Scaria Jose v. Aswathy Scaria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Scaria Jose v. Aswathy Scaria

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

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Niveditha Vs Selvadasan

Sandra Maria Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala