IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 1ST PHALGUNA,
1941
Crl.MC.No.1489 OF 2020(E)
PROCEEDINGS IN CC 2180/2017 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ATTINGAL
CRIME NO.1367/2014 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS:
1 SHEEN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. SUDEVAN, THENGUVILA VEEDU,
KALLAMBALAM P. O., KALLAMBALAM, KARAVARAM
VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 605.
2 SUDEVAN
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. VIDYADHARAN, THENGUVILA VEEDU,
KALLAMBALAM P. O., KALLAMBALAM, KARAVARAM
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695
605.
3 SHOBHANA
AGED 65 YEARS
D/O. LAKSHMI, THENGUVILA VEEDU,
KALLAMBALAM P. O., KALLAMBALAM, KARAVARAM
VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 605.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.SAMEER M NAIR
Crl.M.C.No.1489 of 2020 2
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.
2 REMYA RAJ
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. RAJENDRAN S., CHERUVILA VEEDU,
ALATHUKAVU, PONGANADU P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 605.
R2 BY ADV. ANSU VARGHESE
R1 BY SRI. E.C. BINISH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1489 of 2020 3
Crl.M.C.No.1489 of 2020
———————————————–
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 – III,
Attingal in C.C.No.2180 of 2017.
2. The petitioners are the accused in the said
case. The case was one registered under Section 498A 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.
Crl.M.C.No.1489 of 2020 4
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
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 – III, Attingal in C.C.No.2180 of 2017 and all
further proceedings thereto are quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
DK
Crl.M.C.No.1489 of 2020 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1367/2014 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE
STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
DATED 23.9.2014.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1367/2014 OF KALLAMBALAM
POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS
C.C.NO.2180/2017 ON THE FILES OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S
COURT – III, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED
BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT / 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 8.5.2018.
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
DK
