SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anoop Kumar vs Remya R on 12 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.6938 OF 2019(F)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1831/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I, PATHANAMTHITTA

PETITIONER:

ANOOP KUMAR,
AGED 36 YEARS
AMBADIYIL, PATHIRICKAL P,
PATHANAPURAM P.O.,
PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
H. SOMARAJAN PILLAI, AMBADIYIL,
PATHIRICKAL, P.O.PATHANAPURAM,
PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 695.

BY ADVS.
SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN
SRI.B.HARRYLAL
SMT.U.RESHMA GOPAN

RESPONDENTS:

1 REMYA R.
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
KALYANIYIL, KOODAL P.O.
KOODAL VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 693.

2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.6938 OF 2019(F)

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C No.6938 of 2019

Dated this the 12th day of November, 2019

ORDER

The case projected in this Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the

Cr.P.C are as follows:

The petitioner is highly aggrieved by the pendency of

C.C.No.1831/2015 on the files of JFCM Court-1, Pathanamthitta.

Annexure-P1 complaint was originally filed by 1 st respondent alleging

offence under Secs.498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the

petitioner, his father, mother and brother. Subsequent to Annexure-P2

sworn statement given by the 1st respondent, the learned Magistrate

deleted the name of the petitioner’s father, mother and brother from

the list of accused. But the learned Magistrate took cognizance against

the petitioner alone for the offence under Sec.323 of the IPC. The

disputes between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was settled

through the involvement of relatives and thereafter the petitioner and

the 1st respondent moved Annexure-P3 joint divorce proceedings and
Crl.MC.No.6938 OF 2019(F)

3

obtained Annexure-P4 judgment dated 30.04.2016. Inspite of earlier

assurances, the 1st respondent did not withdrawn Annexure-P1

complaint which she has filed only to pressurize and harass the

petitioner and his family members by making false allegations and

averments. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the

petitioner has filed the instant Crl.M.C with the following prayers:

“i. Call for the records leading up to CC 1831/2015 on the files
of JFCM Court-1, Pathanamthitta and quash the same.

ii. Grant such other reliefs including interim orders that this
Hon’ble Court may find just, proper and necessary in the
interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri.C.R.Reghunathan, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner (accused) and Sri.Santhosh Peter, learned Public

Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State of Kerala. Though R-1 (de facto

complainant) has been duly served, there is no appearance for that

party. It appears that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen

mainly out of matrimonial disputes between the petitioner herein and

R-1 herein, who are spouses. Later, both of them have decided to

resolve their entire disputes and have already dissolved the marital

relationship through the Family Court proceedings. The disputes have

been resolved between the abovesaid parties as per Annexure-P3
Crl.MC.No.6938 OF 2019(F)

4

compromise deed entered into by them before the Family Court,

Pathanamthitta and clause.8 thereof given on internal page No.3 of

Annexure-P3 provides that both sides are agreed that the entire

proceedings pending between them will be duly terminated, etc. It is

pointed out that on the basis of Annexure-P3 compromise deed, the

petitioner has fulfilled his part and has agreed for divorce on mutual

consent, which has resulted in Annexure-P4 judgment and decree of

the Family Court, Pathanamthitta in dissolving the marital

relationship. But thereafter, the 1st respondent is not taking any

interest to co-operate with the petitioner for quashment of the present

impugned criminal proceedings. This Court has called for a report of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, who is

dealing with the instant case and it is stated in the said report of the

learned Magistrate that though the original offences alleged in the

private criminal complaint filed as CMP.No.887/2015 was for offences

under Sec.498A and 34 of the IPC. Later, the learned Magistrate has

taken cognizance only for the offence as per Sec.323 of the IPC. The

offence as per Sec.323 of the IPC is a bailable offence and is a

non-cognizable one. It will sheer wastage of the precious time and
Crl.MC.No.6938 OF 2019(F)

5

resources of the police machinery, prosecution agency and the criminal

trial court to spend its energies in such a case, wherein the parties have

buried the hatchet long ago and have resolved the disputes and the

spouses have also parted their ways.

3. Accordingly, in the interest of justice it is ordered that

further proceedings in C.C.No.1831/2015 on the file of the Judicial

First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Pathanamthitta initiated against the

petitioner/accused and all further proceedings arising therefrom, will

stand quashed.

4. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order to

the Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below

concerned. Office of Advocate General will forward a copy of this order

to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information.

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
vgd
Crl.MC.No.6938 OF 2019(F)

6

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE P1 TRUE COPY OF CC 1831/2015

ANNEXURE P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN
BY 1ST RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF
WITNESS PRASANNA KUMAR

ANNEXURE P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF
ANOTHER WITNESS BY NAME BALAN UNNITHAN

ANNEXURE P3 TRUE COPY OF OP (HMA) 680/2015 BEFORE
HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

ANNEXURE P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (HMA)
680/2015 OF HON’BLE FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA

ANNEXURE P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF
HIS FATHER

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation