Against The Order/Judgment In Sc … vs Manikandan on 13 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/14TH ASWINA, 1939

Crl.MC.No. 6397 of 2017 ()
—————————

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 62/2016 of ASST. SESSIONS COURT
(ADDL.), PALAKKAD
CRIME NO. 632/2015 OF KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
——————————–

1. MANIKANDAN,
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KANDAMUTHAN, THAYANGOTTUPURA VEEDU,
PUTHUKKODE, KANNANUR, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2. PREMAKUMARI,
AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.KANDAMUTHAN, THAYANGOTTUPURA VEEDU,
PUTHUKKODE, KANNANUR, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

3. MADHAVI,
AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.KANDAMUTHAN, THAYANGOTTUPURA VEEDU,
PUTHUKKODE, KANNANUR, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
——————————————

1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. DEEPTHI, AGED 26 YEARS,
D/O.CHANDRAN, CHENGARATH HOUSE, N.S.S.COLLEGE.P.O,
NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 6397 of 2017 ()

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.632/2015 OF KUZHALMAMMAN POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE B ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.9.2017 SWORN TO BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

Pn

SUNIL THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
Crl. M. C. No. 6397 of 2017
——————————————-
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2017

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime

No.632/2015 of Kuzhalmannam Police Station, Palakkad District

for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 511 of 306 read

with 34 IPC. The 1st petitioner had married the 2nd respondent in

accordance with the religious rites. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the in-

laws of the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, matrimonial

relationship got strained leading to registration of the crime at the

instance of the 2nd respondent herein. After investigation final

report was laid and the matter is now pending as S.C. No.62/2016

of the Assistant Sessions Judge (Additional), Palakkad.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court contending

that the disputes have been settled between the parties and the

1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent have decided to live

separately since they have found that continuance of the

matrimonial relationship is impossible. Hence, they have

resolved the disputes amicably. Learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relying

Crl. M. C. No. 6397 of 2017 2

on Annexure B affidavit reiterated the settlement between the

parties. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent that with the intervention of the third parties, disputes

have been resolved.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions

submitted that the matter has been resolved and reported to the

Investigating Officer.

The dispute essentially arose form a matrimonial discord.

Having considered the nature of allegations, I feel that this is a fit

case in which Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked in the best

interest of all parties concerned. Hence, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All

further proceedings in S.C. No.62/2016 of the Assistant Sessions

Judge (Additional), Palakkad stand quashed.

Sd/

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

Pn

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *