IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1918 of 2007
JUDGMENT IN CRA 19/2007 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT
(ADHOC)-I, THODUPUZHA DATED 27-03-2007
JUDGMENT IN CC 1130/2004 of J.M.F.C.-II, PEERUMADE
DATED 11.1.2007
—————-
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-
SALIM, S/O.SAYED MUHAMMED,
PUTHENTHARAYIL HOUSE, KOLLAMPATTADAM BHAGOM,
KUMILY KARA, KUMILY VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-
STATE – S.H.O. KUMILY
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU (SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitioner herein challenges the
conviction and sentence against him under Section 498A
IPC in C.C.1130/2004 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Peermade. The case relates to the
commission of suicide by the revision petitioner’s wife
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1918/2007 and
Crl.M.A.No.1/2018
-: 2 :-
Jameela. The police did not find a case of abetment of
suicide, and so, final report was filed in the trial
court under Section 498A IPC. The accused faced trial,
and contested the case. He was found guilty, and was
convicted by the trial court. Against the conviction
and sentence, the accused approached the Court of
Session, Thodupuzha with Crl.A.No.19/2007, but he
failed in appeal.
2. Pending the revision, it was submitted on the
last occasion that the parties have come to terms
amicably, out of court. The complaint in this case was
made by the father of the deceased. He was examined as
PW1 in the trial court, and the son of the deceased was
examined as PW3. He is the son of the accused also.
Now, the parties have filed Crl.M.A.No.1/2018 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the whole prosecution,
including the conviction and sentence. This
application is supported by the affidavit of PW1 and
PW3 examined in the trial court. The son of the
accused is now aged 25 years. PW1, who filed complaint
before the police is now aged 75 years. The incident
happened years back. It is submitted that the son of
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1918/2007 and
Crl.M.A.No.1/2018
-: 3 :-
the accused has been trying for a good alliance. He
was examined as a witness against his father, and his
grandfather also gave evidence supporting the
prosecution case. Whether the evidence given by them
will satisfy the definition of cruelty under Section
498A IPC is a matter for examination. Any way, in the
present circumstances, where the parties have decided
to put an end to the legal fight, I feel it appropriate
to quash the prosecution against the accused. Even the
son of the accused, who once turned against him, is now
cordial with his father, and he has filed affidavit to
the effect that he has no grievance or complaint now,
though his mother happened to commit suicide in an
unfortunate circumstance. It appears that the accused
is now interested in getting a good alliance for his
son. I find that the parties have really settled the
dispute, and the settlement is acceptable in the
present circumstances. If the settlement is not
accepted, and the conviction happened to be confirmed
in revision, that would definitely affect the future of
the son of the accused. In the peculiar circumstances,
I feel it appropriate to quash the whole prosecution,
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1918/2007 and
Crl.M.A.No.1/2018
-: 4 :-
including the conviction and sentence, accepting the
compromise made by the parties.
In the result, Crl.M.A.No.1/2018 is allowed,
and the revision is disposed of in terms of the orders
in Crl.M.A.No.1/2018. Accordingly, the whole
prosecution against the revision petitioner, including
the conviction and sentence against him under Section
498A IPC in C.C.No.1130/2004 will stand set aside.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
JUDGE
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
Jvt/30.10.2018