SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jithesh vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940

CRL.MC.NO. 1050 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1139/2017 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PARAPPANANGADI

CRIME NO. 279/2017 OF PARAPPANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

PETITIONERS:
1 JITHESH, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O. RAJAN, KAKKATTUTHARAYIL HOUSE, PADINJATTINPAI,
CHELAMBRA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 643.

2 GEETHA, AGED 56 YEARS,
W/O. RAJAN, KAKKATTUTHARAYIL HOUSE, PADINJATTINPAI,
CHELAMBRA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 643.

3 RAJAN,AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O. SANKARAN, KAKKATTUTHARAYIL HOUSE,
PADINJATTINPAI, CHELAMBRA P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 643.

4 RAJESH, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. RAJAN, KAKKATTUTHARAYIL HOUSE, PADINJATTINPAI,
CHELAMBRA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 643.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR, SHRI.NANDAKUMAR K.

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

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR POF POLICE,
THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION,
THENHIPALAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 636.

3 AATHIRA KRISHNAN, AGED 25 YEARS,D/O. KRISNAN KUTTY,
NADUTHODI HOUSE, KOLAKKATTUCHALI P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 634.

SRI.AMJAD ALI , PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1,
SRI.P.JERIL BABU FOR R3

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
————————————–
Crl.M.C. No. 1050 of 2019
————————————–
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned

Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.279/17 of Tenhipalam Police Station,

Malappuram district, registered for offences punishable under

Secs.498A 406 r/w 34 of the IPC, which has led to the

institution of Anx.A2 final report in C.C.No.1139/2017 on the file

of the JFCM, Parappanangadi. It is stated that now the entire

disputes between the petitioners and the 3 rd respondent defacto

complainant have been settled amicably and that the 3 rd

respondent has sworn to Anx.A3 affidavit before this Court,

wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with

the petitioners and that she has no objection for quashment of the

impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It

is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred

the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned

criminal proceedings against them.

2. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that,
Crl.M.C. No. 1050 / 2019

..3..

in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences,

the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers

under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the

whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not

serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement

between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the

prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other

than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case

ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and

on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the

affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts

and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the

cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1)

SCC (Cri) 160 (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and

others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC

466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in

this case to consider the prayer for quashment.
Crl.M.C. No. 1050 / 2019

..4..

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

the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.279/17 of Tenhipalam

Police Station, Malappuram district, and Anx.A2 final report in

C.C.No.1139/2017 on the file of the JFCM, Parappanangadi, and all

further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused

persons will stand quashed.

With these observations and directions, the Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE

MMG
Crl.M.C. No. 1050 / 2019

..5..

APPENDIX
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.279/17 OF
PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.279/2017.

ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN THE
ABOVE CASE.

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 © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh