SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rakesh.M.V vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1941

Crl.MC.No. 3376 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 537/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS ,KUNNAMKULAM

CRIME NO. 2102/2016 OF Kunnamkulam Police Station , Thrissur

PETITIONER/S:
RAKESH.M.V
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, DY. MANAGER AT SBI, MUTHUPARAMBIL
HOUSE, KADANGODE DESOM, VILLAGE AND (P.O),
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680584.

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSCUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 ANUSREE SADANANDAN, AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. SADANANDAN, PRUVAZHIPURATH HOUSE, SREEPADAM,
SANKARAPURAM, TEMPLE ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM P.O,
SANKARAPURAM DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680503.

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1,
SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 3376 of 2019

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2019
ORDER

The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx. A-2

final report/charge sheet filed in Anx. A-1 FIR in Crime No. 2102/

2016 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, registered for offences

punishable under Sec.498A of the SectionI.P.C., which has led to the

institution of C.C.No. 537/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate’s Court, Kunnamkulam, based on the complaint of the 2 nd

respondent defacto complainant. It is stated that now the entire

disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent defacto

complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent

has sworn to Anx. A-4 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.3376/19 – : 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. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the

impugned Anx. A-2 final report/charge sheet filed in Anx. A-1 FIR in
Crl.M.C.3376/19 – : 4 :-

Crime No. 2102/2016 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, which has led

to the institution of C.C.No. 537/2018 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate’s Court, Kunnamkulam and all further proceedings

arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before

the 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/-

sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Crl.M.C.3376/19 – : 5 :-

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.2102/2016 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME

NO.2102/2016 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
12.01.2018 IN OP.1093 OF 2016 AND
M.C.NO.299/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.

ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
10.05.2019.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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