SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prasanth K vs Shruthi Krishnan K.V on 27 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA,
1941

Crl.MC.No.8386 OF 2019(G)

CC 504/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KANNUR

CRIME NO.1501/2016 OF Valappatanam Police Station , Kannur

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1:

PRASANTH K.,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O BHARGAVAN, PRANAVAM,
ATTADAPPA, KANNUR.

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT STATE:

1 SHRUTHI KRISHNAN K.V.,
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O KRISHNAN K.V., KANDOTH VALAPPIL HOUSE,
AROLI P.O., PAPPINISSERRI, KANNUR – 670 563.

2 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION,
VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR – 670004.

BY ADV.
SRI.R.SREEHARI -R1
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No. 8386 of 2019

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
————————————
Crl.M.C. No. 8386 of 2019
————————————
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx.A1

FIR in Crime No.1501/2016 of Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur

district, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A r/w

Sec.34 of the SectionIPC, which has led to the institution of Anx.A2 Final

report in C.C No.504/2019 on the file of JFCM-II, Kannur. It is

stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner and 1st

respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that

the1st respondent has sworn to Anx.A4 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. 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
Crl.M.C. No. 8386 of 2019

3

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.

3. It is further pointed out that originally four persons have
Crl.M.C. No. 8386 of 2019

4

been arrayed as accused in which the petitioner has been arrayed as

accused No.1 in the instant case. The case against the petitioner was

split up and now is refiled as C.C No.504/2019, on the file of

JFCM-II, Kannur. Whereas the trial as against the original accused

Nos.2 to 4 had proceeded and JFCM-II, Kannur as per Anx.A3

judgment dated 06-05-2019 in C.C No.2291/2016 has acquitted all

the abovesaid co-accused persons. Paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of Anx.A3

judgment of acquittal reads as follows.

“6. Point No.(i):- According to the prosecution, the
accused subjected Sruthi to cruelties. She was examined
as PW1. The 1st accused is the husband of PW1. The
accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother
respectively of the 1st accused. The 4th accused is the sister
of the 1st accused. PW1 deposed that she married the 1 st
accused on 31-03-2013. PW1 also deposed that she filed a
complaint before the court against the accused alleging
cruelties and the same is the Ext.P1. But PW1 deposed
that accused did not subject her to cruelties and she
mentioned the name of the accused in the Ext.P1 due to the
misunderstanding. PW2 and PW3 are the father and
mother respectively of PW1. Both of them deposed that
they did not see the accused subjecting PW1 to cruelties.

7. In the above circumstance, the prosecution has
given up the remaining witnesses as their examination
will not serve any purpose. So by going through the
evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has come out that
there is no evidence to connect the accused with the
alleged offence. The prosecution has not succeeded in
proving the guilt of the accused in this case. Hence these
points are answered against the prosecution.

8. Point No.(ii):- In the light of the finding on Point
No.(i), the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are found not guilty of
Crl.M.C. No. 8386 of 2019

5

the offence U/s 498A r/w 34 of SectionIPC and they are acquitted
U/s.248(1) of SectionCr.PC. Their bail bonds stands cancelled
and they are set at liberty. The case against the 1 st
accused split up and refiled as C.C No.504/2019.”

4. So it is crystal clear from a mere reading of Anx-A3

judgment of acquittal of the co-accused, that the very foundation of

the present impugned criminal proceedings has been demolished by

the acquittal of the co-accused persons and hence the impugned

criminal proceedings could be quashed on the ground of acquittal of

the co-accused, within the parameters as envisaged in the aforecited

decisions as in SectionMoosa v. Sub Inspector of Police, reported in

2006 (1) KLT 552 (SectionFB), Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala,

reported in 2011 (2) KHC 812 and in SectionAbbas v. State of Kerala .

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

impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.1501/2016 of Valapattanam

Police Station, Kannur district, which has led to the institution of

Anx.A2 Final report in C.C No.504/2019 on the file of JFCM-II,

Kannur, and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending

against the accused will stand quashed.

6. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order
Crl.M.C. No. 8386 of 2019

6

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 Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
KAS
Crl.M.C. No. 8386 of 2019

7

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1501/2016 OF
VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION INCLUDING
THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT.

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME 1501/2016 OF VALAPPATTANAM POLICE
STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
06-05-2019 IN CC 2291/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT NO.II, KANNUR.

ANNEXURE A4 SWORN AFFIDAVIT DATED 15-08-2019
EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.

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