SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Milan vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 1249 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1115/2015 of ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM

CRIME NO. 1911/2014 OF Ernakulam North Police Station ,
Ernakulam

PETITIONER/S:

MILAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O MOHANAN,KADAVIL PARAMBIL
HOUSE,SAFDAR HASHMI LANE, BACK SIDE OF LOURDESS
HOSPITAL PACHALAM,CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
SHRI. SHIJOB M J
SMT.SANJANA RACHEL JOSE

RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 SOUMYA MILAN, AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O.SUNDARAN,MANAPPURATH HOUSE,
CHERRIYAPALLAMTHURUTHU KARA,NORTH
PARAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1,
SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA FOR R2

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 1249 of 2019

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2019
ORDER

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the impugned Anx.I FIR

in Crime No.1911/2014 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station,

registered for offences punishable under Secs.452, 341, 498A, 294(b), 341,

323, 324 of the I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint filed by the 2 nd

respondent defacto complainant, which has led to the institution of C.C.No.

1115/2015 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

Ernakulam. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the

petitioners and 2nd respondent defacto complainant have been settled

amicably and that the 2nd respondent has sworn to Anx.III affidavit before

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

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

impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner herein. It is

in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant

Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings

against him.

2. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, 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
Crl.M.C.1249/19 – : 3 :-

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.

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

impugned Anx.I FIR in Crime No.1911/2014 of Ernakulam Town North

Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 1115/2015 on the

file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, and all further

proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand

quashed.

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Crl.M.C.1249/19 – : 4 :-

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC

NO.1115/2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
,MAGISTRATE COURT,ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR MUTUAL
DIVORCE FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE III A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE
DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 05.02.2019.

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