Allowed

Dhanesh Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2023Crl.MC/20/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash the final report in a criminal case based on Sections 498-A IPC. The Court held that since the dispute was personal and amicably settled, proceeding further would serve no purpose. The proceedings were quashed invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed and the Final Report in C.C.No.523 of 2022 was quashed.

Dhanesh Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 20 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 523/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ALATHUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

1 DHANESH PADMANABHAN AGED 33 YEARS, S/O PADMANABHAN, THEJAS, KOTHAKULAM, NEAR VETTAKORUMAKAN TEMPLE, NENMARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508 2 PUSHPA PADMANABHAN AGED 62 YEARS, W/O PADMANABHAN, THEJAS, KOTHAKULAM, NEAR VETTAKORUMAKAN TEMPLE, NENMARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508 BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RITHIK S.ANAND ANU PAUL SREELAKSHMI MENON P. T.R.ANIL VENUGOPAL A.K.PRIYA

¶9

RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ARCHANA V. NAIR AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. VENUGOPALAN, KAUSTHOOBHAM, UMBUKATTU HOUSE, THODANKULANGARA, AVALODUNNU PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688006 BY ADV P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH

¶11

P.G.MANU SR.P.P

¶12

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

¶13

CRL.MC NO. 20 of 2023

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Dated this the 13 th day of January, 2023

¶17

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.523 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶18

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 & 2. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶19

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

¶20

The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶21

I have heard Sri.K.N.Abhilash, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.B.Muhammed Ajeesh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶22

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2^nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 20 of 2023

¶24

-:3:-

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 20 of 2023

¶29

by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2. The offences in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the

¶30

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

¶31

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-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.523 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur hereby stands quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶34

APA

¶35

CRL.MC NO. 20 of 2023

¶36

-:5:-

¶37

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 20/2023

¶38

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶39

Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30.03.2022 IN CRIME NO. 129/2022 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 13-06-2022 IN C.C. NO. 523/2022 OF HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ALATHUR IN CRIME NO. 129/2022 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2022

Dhanesh Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanesh Padmanabhan 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

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Niveditha Vs Selvadasan

Sandra Maria Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala

Scaria Jose Vs Aswathy Scaria