Allowed

V.S. Sooraj Ayyannar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2024Crl.MC/441/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and his parents accused of misappropriating wife's gold ornaments and harassing her for dowry sought quashing of FIR on the basis of an amicable settlement, with the de facto complainant filing an affidavit of no grievance. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A2 FIR in Crime No.1293/2023 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode and all further proceedings quashed.

V.S. Sooraj Ayyannar Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 441 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.1293/2023 OF Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 V.S. SOORAJ AYYANNAR,AGED 28 YEARS S/O V.G. SANTHOSH, SIVADARSHINI HOUSE, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016

¶8

2 V.G. SANTHOSH,AGED 54 YEARS S/O GANAPATH, SIVADARSHINI HOUSE, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016

¶9

3 NISHA. V.S,AGED 50 YEARS,W/O V.G. SANTHOSH, SIVADARSHINI HOUSE, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673016

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRINATH GIRISH
P.JERIL BABU

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 JYOTHIKA .V.R,AGED 22 YEARS D/O V.R. RAJESH, SAIJYOTHI NIVAS, MAVILAPARAMBA, KUTHIRAVATTAM P.O, PARAYANCHERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016 BY ADV P.RIJI

¶14

pp smt shynimole v o

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.M.C No.441 of 2024

¶18

C.S DIAS,J.

¶19

======================

¶20

Crl.M.C No.441 of 2024

¶21

=======================

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2024.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure-A2 FIR in Crime No.1293/2023 of the Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode.

¶25

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the above crime, registered against them at the instance of the second respondent, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the first accused is the husband of the second respondent. The accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused. The first accused and the second respondent were married on 13.5.2022. The accused in furtherance of their common

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C No.441 of 2024

¶29

intention, misappropriated the gold ornaments of the second respondent and mentally and physically harassed her for more dowry. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

¶30

Heard; Sri.Srinath Girish, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Shynimole V.O, the learned Public Prosecutor and Smt.P.Riji, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the petition, the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent has been amicably settled out of court. The second respondent has filed Annexure-A3 affidavit stating that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and has

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C No.441 of 2024

¶34

no objection in the proceedings being quashed. Hence the petition may be allowed.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer has filed Refer Charge No.394/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, stating that the case has been registered on a mistake of fact. The said submission is recorded.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also submitted that the subject-matter in dispute between the parties has been settled and the second respondent has no objection in the proceedings being quashed.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303] and Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others

¶38

vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in facts and circumstances of a case and to

¶39

¶40

Crl.M.C No.441 of 2024

¶41

secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶42

On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially after going through Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn- in by the second respondent, which has been found to be genuine and bona fide by the Investigating Officer, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony in society. Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition.

¶43

¶44

Crl.M.C No.441 of 2024

¶45

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Annexure-A2 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.1293/2023 of the Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode.

sd/-

sks/11.3.2024

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

Crl.M.C No.441 of 2024

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 441/2024

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

`Annexure A1`	`A CERTIFIED COPY OF`	`THE FIS IN CRIME NO.`
	`1293/2023 OF MEDI`	`CAL COLLEGE POLICE`
	`STATION DATED 26-10-2`	`023`
`Annexure A2`	`A CERTIFIED COPY OF`	`THE FIR NO. 1293/2023`
	`DATED 26-10-2023 OF`	`MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE`
	`STATION`
`Annexure A3`	`THE AFFIDAVIT DATED`	`12-12-2023 SUBMITTED`
	`BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`

V.S. Sooraj Ayyannar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S. Sooraj Ayyannar 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

Saju J @ Saju Jose, Vs State of Kerala

Philomina P.C, Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Sufaid Vs State of Kerala

Sophia Naushad Khan Vs State of Kerala

Nazla P Vs State of Kerala