IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6524 of 2018
CRIME NO. 2211/2017 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , Kollam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3:
1 RAKESH,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O RAJESH, RAKESH BHAVAN, NJARAKKADU THEKKETHIL, NO.
37 THEJUS NAGAR, VADAKKEVILA P O, KOLLAM.
2 RAJESH,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O VIJAYAN, BALAJI, RAKESH BHAVAN, NJARAKKADU
THEKKETHIL, NO. 37 THEJUS NAGAR, VADAKKEVILA P O,
KOLLAM.
3 AMBUJAM,
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O RAKESH, RAKESH BHAVAN, NJARAKKADU THEKKETHIL, NO.
37 THEJUS NAGAR, VADAKKEVILA P O, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SMT.MANJUSHA K
SRI.R.RANJITH
RESPONDENT/STATE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 AMRITHA J. RAJ
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O SIVARAJAN, KRISHNAKRIPA, KALLUMTHAZHAM,
KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 014
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031
Crl.M.C.No.6524/2018 2
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE ANTONY
OTHER PRESENT:
PP AJITH MURALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6524/2018 3
O R D E R
Petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.2211/2017 of
Eravipuram Police station for offences punishable under sections 498A, 406,
323 read with section 34 IPC.
2. Petitioners along with the 4th accused harassed the defacto
complainant in connection with demand for dowry. Crime was registered.
Petitioners have approached this court to quash the proceedings on the ground
that the dispute has been settled.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, all the disputes
between the parties have been settled, Compounding petition signed by the
defacto complainant and counter signed by the accused has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, an amount of
Rs.4,25,000/-, which is liable to be paid, has been paid to the satisfaction of the
defacto complainant. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant has
acknowledged the receipt of money.
4. Having considered the above facts, I am inclined to hold that, the
dispute between the parties is essentially a family dispute without involving a
larger question of public interest. Hence, I am inclined to quash the criminal
proceedings. Even though 4th accused is not in the party array, learned counsel
for the defacto complainant has referred in the affidavit filed in support of the
compounding petition that defacto complainant has no grievance against the
Crl.M.C.No.6524/2018 4
4th accused. This is taken on record.
In the light of the above, Crl.M.C.is allowed. All further proceedings
pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.2211/2017 of Eravipuram Police
station stand quashed.
SD/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE
Crl.M.C.No.6524/2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2211 OF
2017 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION.