IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 29TH MAGHA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.5009 OF 2019(E)
CRIME NO.381/2019 OF Poovar Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 2:
1 ANU MOHAN
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. MOHAN, ANU VILLA, KILLY, KOLLODU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
2 ANITHAKUMARI
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. MOHAN, ANU VILLA, KILLY, KOLLODU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031
2 CHANDNI
D/O. CHANDRIKA, CHANDNI HOUSE, KALINKVILAKAM,
ARUMANOOR, POOVAR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 001
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD
R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.S.LETHA
SRI.AMJAD ALI – SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.5009 OF 2019(E)
2
Crl.M.C.No.5009 of 2019
———————————————–
ORDER
This is a proceedings under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure – A1 First
Information Report and all further proceedings pursuant
thereto in Crime No.381 of 2019 of the Poovar Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The petitioners are the accused in the said
case. The case was one registered under Section 498A rea
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is seen that the petitioners and the de facto
complainant have amicably settled the disputes. An affidavit
sworn to by the de facto complainant to that effect is part of
the records.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for
the de facto complainant.
5. It is seen that the dispute arose on account of
Crl.MC.No.5009 OF 2019(E)
3
the matrimonial discord between the de facto complainant
and her husband, the first accused. Though the matter is
settled between the parties,I have examined the accusation in
the case and found that this is a matter that could be settled
and closed in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in
Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4
SCC 58 and Gian singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure –
A1 First Information Report and all further proceedings
pursuant thereto in Crime No.381 of 2019 of the Poovar Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
PV
Crl.MC.No.5009 OF 2019(E)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.381/2019 OF THE POOVAR POLICE
STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUS TICKET DATED
1.4.2019
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING
THE BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL
