IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA,
1941
Crl.MC.No.1695 OF 2020(B)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 168/2013 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM
CRIME NO.1810/2012 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , Kollam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 SAJURAHIM, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.RAHIMKUTTY, SANO MANZIL, THAZATHUCHERRY,
KOOTTIKADA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691020.
2 SANORAHIM, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.RAHIMKUTTY, SANO MANZIL, THAZATHUCHERRY,
KOOTTIKADA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691020.
3 JASMIN, AGED 33 YEARS
W/OSANORAHIM, SANO MANZIL, THAZATHUCHERRY,
KOOTTIKADA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691020.
4 NAZIMA, AGED 58 YEARS
D/O.SAINABABEEVI, SANO MANZIL,
THAZATHUCHERRY, KOOTTIKADA.P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT-691020.
BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691011.
3 SREEDEVI, D/O.CHANDRABABU, AGED 33 YEARS,
MANKKUTTHIL HOUSE, THATTAMALA.P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691020.
Crl.MC.No.1695 OF 2020(B)
..2..
R3 BY ADV. T.P.PRADEEP
BY SR. PP SRI. AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.1695 OF 2020(B)
..3..
Crl.MC.No.1695 OF 2020(B)
————————————–
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-II,
Kollam in C.C.No. 168 of 2013.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the
said case. The case was one registered under Sections 498A
and 120B 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
Crl.MC.No.1695 OF 2020(B)
..4..
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-II, Kollam in C.C.No. 168 of 2013 and all
further proceedings thereto are quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
ds 28.02.2020
Crl.MC.No.1695 OF 2020(B)
..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH COPY OF THE
CMP IN CRIME NO.1810/2012 OF
ERVAIPURAM POLICE.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.1810/2012 OF ERVAIPURAM POLICE
WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS CC.NO.168/2013
ON THE FILE OF JFCM-II KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.4.2013 IN OP(SMA) NO.500/2012.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
