SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Maneesh vs The State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2019

Crl.M.C.No.8659/2019 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.8659 OF 2019(B)

CRIME NO.1486/2019 OF Kunnicode Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 MANEESH,AGED 29 YEARS,S/O. MOHANAN, MANEESH BHAVANAM,
THIRUVAZHY, ELAMPAL, VILAKUDI VILLAGE, KUNNIKODE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 691 508.

2 MONISHA, AGED 31 YEARS,D/O. MOHANAN, MANEESH BHAVANAM,
THIRUVAZHY, ELAMPAL, VILAKUDI VILLAGE, KUNNIKODE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 691 508.

3 MOHANAN,MANEESH BHAVANAM, THIRUVAZHY, ELAMPAL, VILAKUDI
VILLAGE, KUNNIKODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 508.

4 RADHAMONY,AGED 48 YEARS,W/O. MOHANAN, MANEESH BHAVANAM,
THIRUVAZHY, ELAMPAL, VILAKUDI VILLAGE, KUNNIKODE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 691 508.

BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
SMT. SALINI N.
SMT.A.B.SHYMOL

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 ASWATHY,AGED 20 YEARS,D/O. ANILKUMAR, AYYAPPANTAZHIKATHU
VEEDU, KADUVATHODU, PATTAZHI, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 691 522.

R2 BY ADV. SAJU J PANICKER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.8659/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
Crl.M.C.No. 8659 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners herein are accused 1 to 4 in the impugned Anx-A

FIR in Crime No.1486/2019 of Kunnikode Police Station, Kollam

District, which has been registered for offences punishable under

Secs.294(b0, 323, 498A and 34 of the SectionI.P.C., on the basis of a

complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. It is stated

that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2 nd

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, in

appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the
Crl.M.C.No.8659/2019 3

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 affidavits 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.

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

the impugned Anx-A FIR in Crime No.1486/2019 of Kunnikode Police

Station, Kollam District and all further proceedings arising therefrom

pending against the accused will stand quashed.
Crl.M.C.No.8659/2019 4

The petitioners will produce certified copy of this order before

the court below concerned as well as the Investigating officer

concerned. The office of the Advocate General will also forward a

certified copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned.

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd
Crl.M.C.No.8659/2019 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT DATED 7.10.2019 IN
CRIME NO.1486/2019 OF KUNNIKODE POLICE
STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE B THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2019.

True Copy

P.S. To Judge.

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