SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mahesh vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941

CRL.MC.NO.6924 OF 2019(E)

CC 2072/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III,THRISSUR

CRIME NO.591/2015 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

1 MAHESH, S/O.MANI, AGED 34 YEARS,
PULIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLI,P.O,
MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

2 USHA, W/O.MANI, AGED 59 YEARS,
PULIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLI.P.O.,
MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

3 SHIMNA, W/O.SIJOY, AGED 32 YEARS,
CHIRAYINMMEL HOUSE, OORAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.K.S.RAJESH

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANNUTHY POLICE STATION.

2 RESHMA,
D/O.VALSAN, AGED 23 YEARS, CHELLIKKARA HOUSE,
P.O.KOZHUKKULLI, MANNUTHY,
NOW RESIDING AT ERAVIMANGALAM, P.O VEEMBIL THOROTH,
NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

SRI.P.N.SUMODU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1.
SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, ADVOCATE FOR R2.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
————————————
Crl.M.C. No. 6924 of 2019
————————————
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners herein are the accused persons in the

impugned Anx.A Final Report in C.C.No.2072/2015 on the file of

the JFCM-III, Thrisur, which has been arised from Crime

No.591/2015 of Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur district,

registered for offences punishable under Secs.406, 420, 323, 498A

34 of the SectionIPC. It is stated that now the entire disputes between

the petitioners and the 2nd respondent defacto complainant have

been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent has sworn to

Anx.B 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. 6924 / 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 SectionCr.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 SectionGian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1)

SCC (Cri) 160 (2012) 10 SCC 303 and SectionNarinder 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. 6924 / 2019

..4..

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

the impugned Anx.A Final Report in C.C.No.2072/2015 on the file

of the JFCM-III, Thrisur, which has been arised from Crime

No.591/2015 of Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur district, and all

further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused

persons will stand quashed.

4. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this

order before Investigating Officer concerned and the competent

court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will

forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned

for information.

With these observations and directions, the above

Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE

MMG
Crl.M.C. No. 6924 / 2019

..5..

APPENDIX
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT
OF THE ACCUSED COPY OF FINAL REPORT
FILED IN CRIME NO.591/2015 REGISTERED
BY MANNUTHY POLICE STATION FILED
BEFORE THE JFCM COURT NO.III,
THRISSUR, DT.4.7.2015

ANNEXURE B THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT DT.30.09.2019

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