IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 3979 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2230/2015 of TEMPORARY JUDL. FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL
CRIME NO. 1758/2014 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 ANTONY IBIN
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O ANDROOS, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE,
KAMPANIPEEDIKA, OCHANTHURUTHU, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE,
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682508.
2 GRACY
AGED 56 YEARS, W/O ANDROOS,
KANAKKASSERY HOUSE,
KAMPANIPEEDIKA, OCHANTHURUTHU, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE,
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682508.
3 SARITHA
AGED 35 YEARS, D/O ANDROOS,
KANAKKASSERY HOUSE,
KAMPANIPEEDIKA, OCHANTHURUTHU, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE,
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682508.
BY ADV.SRI.JACOB GEORGE (PARAVUR)
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
(REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CR.NO.1758/2014 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION)
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM.
2. THRESSIA NEENU,
AGED 24 YEARS, D/O GEORGE, THAIPARAMPIL HOUSE,
ANCHUCHIRABHAGAM, NJARAKKAL, KOCHI TALUK,
ERNAKULAM-682505.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MANASH
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
R1 BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI T R RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2018 ALONG
WITH CRL.M.C.3988/18, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3979 of 2018 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)’ EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO.2230/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED 2.6.2018.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
True Copy / P A to Judge
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C.Nos.3979 and 3988 of 2018
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2018
COMMON ORDER
These Crl.M.C’s arise from C.C.Nos.2230 of 2015 and
2016 of 2015, both of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Njarakkal.
2. The crux of the prosecution allegation in C.C.No.2230 of
2015 is that, after the marriage of the first petitioner in
Crl.M.C.No.3979 of 2018 with the second respondent, she was
subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioners, who are
the husband and in-laws demanding more dowry. Pursuant to the
harassment, defacto complainant is stated to have laid an FIS, and
Crime No.1758 of 2014 was registered by the Njarakkal police for
offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was laid.
Parties faced trial in that. In C.C.No.2016 of 2015, accused Nos.1
and 2 in C.C.No.2230 of 2015 are the defacto complainant and the
injured. Accused therein are the close relatives of the defacto
complainant in C.C.No.2230 of 2015. It is stated therein that,
accused assaulted the defacto complainant pursuant to matrimonial
dispute involving their relatives. Crime was registered as Crime
Crl.M.C.Nos.3979 and 3988 of 2018
2
No.1320 of 2014 by the Njarakkal Police Station for offences
punishable under sections 323, 448, 294(b), 506(i) and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Pending the proceedings, matrimonial disputes are
stated to have been resolved stating that the spouses have decided
to live separately after giving quietus to the matrimonial dispute.
An affidavit has been affirmed by the wife. It is produced in
Crl.M.C.No.3979 of 2018 as Annexure-A2. She has expressed her
willingness to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by her.
Accordingly, respondents in C.C.No.2016 of 2015 have filed two
separate affidavits as Annexures-A2 and A3 in Crl.M.C.No.3988 of
2018. It is stated by them that, they have no objection in quashing
the proceedings. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that the parties have resolved their dispute and
statement of the respective defacto complainants have been
recorded.
4. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the
settlement arrived at between the parties, I find that, no purpose
will be served by prosecuting the petitioners herein, essentially, the
dispute is a matrimonial dispute and questions of public importance
do not arise. Accordingly, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction
Crl.M.C.Nos.3979 and 3988 of 2018
3
under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings.
In the result, Crl.M.Cs are allowed. All further
proceedings arising from C.C.Nos.2230 of 2015 and 2016 of 2015,
both of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal will stand
quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
Sbna/6/7/18
True Copy / P A to Judge
