IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.1371 OF 2020(B)
PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1155/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM
CRIME NO.2441/2015 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 RANJITH KUMAR,
S/O. M.R. RAMACHANDRAN, MUTHANGAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERINGOTTUKURUSSY, NADUVATHAPPARA, PALAKKAD.
2 LEELA,
W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, MUTHANGAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERINGOTTUKURUSSY, NADUVATHAPPARA, PALAKKAD.
3 M.R. RAMACHANDRAN,
MUTHANGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUVATHAPPARA,
PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 RAMYA,
MELEPPATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KANIPPAYYOR DEVASWOM,
KANIPPAYYOR VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680523.
R2 BY ADV.C.K.SREEJITH
R1 BY SRI.AMJAD ALI, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1371 of 2020 2
ORDER
This is a proceedings under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure – A2 Final Report
pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kunnamkulam in C.C.No.1155 of 2016.
2. The petitioners are the accused in the said
case. The case was one registered under Sections 498A and
406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is seen 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
Crl.M.C.No.1371 of 2020 3
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
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 –
A2 Final Report pending trial before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam in C.C.No.1155 of 2016 and all
further proceedings thereto are quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
DK
Crl.M.C.No.1371 of 2020 4
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT DATED 09/12/2015.
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE FILED BY
THE POLICE IN CRIME 2441/2015 DATED
18/01/2016.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OP NO.178/2016
DATED 11/08/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT TO REPORT THE
SETTLEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 12/12/2019.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
DK