SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ranjith vs Athira.N.P. on 12 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA,
1941

Crl.MC.No.1222 OF 2020(C)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 498/2019 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS 1 TO 4:

1 RANJITH, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.PRAKASAN, KAKKADATH HOUSE,
NAGATHINGALPARAMBU, ARTS COLLEGE P.O.,
MEENCHANTHA, PANNIYANKARA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 018.

2 REEJA, AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.PRAKASAN, KAKKADATH HOUSE,
NAGATHINGALPARAMBU, ARTS COLLEGE P.O.,
MEENCHANTHA, PANNIYANKARA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 018.

3 CHITHRA, AGED 28 YEARS
W/O.JITHU, KAKKADATH HOUSE,
NAGATHINGALPARAMBU, ARTS COLLEGE P.O.,
MEENCHANTHA, PANNIYANKARA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 018.

4 JITHU.K., AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.PRAKASAN, KAKKADATH HOUSE,
NAGATHINGALPARAMBU, ARTS COLLEGE P.O.,
MEENCHANTHA, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE,
PIN-673 018.

BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN

RESPONDENTS/THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT STATE:

1 ATHIRA.N.P., AGED 20 YEARS
D/O.NITHYANANDAN, NARAYANEEYAM, EDOLIMEETHAL,
KOMMERI P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 007.
Crl.M.C. No. 1222 of 2020

..2..

2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

BY SR. PP SRI.SANTHOSH PETER

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No. 1222 of 2020

..3..

Crl.M.C. No. 1222 of 2020
———————————-

ORDER

This is a proceedings under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure A1 Final Report

pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Kozhikode in C.C.No.498 of 2019.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 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

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.M.C. No. 1222 of 2020

..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

A1 Final Report pending trial before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode in C.C.No.498 of 2019 and all

further proceedings thereto are quashed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
ds 13.02.2020
Crl.M.C. No. 1222 of 2020

..5..

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED
BY THE PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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