IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 1ST MAGHA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.3 OF 2020(A)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 598/2018 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS – I, KARUNAGAPPALLY
CRIME NO.600/2018 OF Karunaagapally Police Station ,
Kollam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3:
1 NISHADH, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMAD HANEEPHA, NISHA MANZIL HOUSE,
KADATHOOR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, THAZHAVA
P.O. KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT
690 523.
2 SHAHIDHA, AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMAD HANEEPHA, NISHA MANZIL HOUSE,
KADATHOOR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, THAZHAVA
P.O. KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT
690 523.
3 ANSHADH @ KOCHUMON, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMAD HANEEPHA, NISHA MANZIL HOUSE,
KADATHOOR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, THAZHAVA
P.O. KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT
690 523.
BY ADV. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682
031.
2 THE SHO, KARUNAGAPPLLY POLICE STATION
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690523.
Crl.MC.No.3 OF 2020(A)
..2..
3 SHEMI, AGED 24 YEARS
W/O. NISHADH, KOPRAPURA HOUSE, KANNAMBALLI
BHAGAM, KAREELAKULANGARA VILLAGE,
KARTHIKAPPALLI TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690
501.
R3 BY ADV. G.PADMAKUMAR
BY SR. PP SRI. AMJED ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.3 OF 2020(A)
..3..
Crl.M.C. No. 3 of 2020
————————————–
ORDER
This is a proceedings under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure-AI Final Report
pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Karunagappally in C.C.No. 598 of 2018.
2. The petitioners are the accused in the said case.
The case was one registered under Sections 498A, 341, 323,
324 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is stated that the petitioners and the de facto
complainant of the crime have amicably settled the disputes.
An affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant 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
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
Crl.MC.No.3 OF 2020(A)
..4..
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-AI
Final Report pending trial before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Karunagappally in C.C.No. 598 of 2018 and
all further proceedings thereto are quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
ds 22.01.2020
Crl.MC.No.3 OF 2020(A)
..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.
NO. 598/2018 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPALLY.
ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2019.