SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Umasankar vs 2 on 24 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA,
1941

Crl.MC.No.2412 OF 2019(B)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 64/2017 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, TRIVANDRUM

PETITIONER/S:

1 UMASANKAR, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYALAKSHMI, SREE DHANALAKSHMI NIVAS,
PANAMANNA SOUTH P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2 VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. LATE SIVASANKAR, 3B, OMEGA CROWN FLAT,
POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR.

3 UDAYASANKAR, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYALAKSHMI, SREE DHANALAKSHMI NIVAS,
PANAMANNA SOUTH P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

4 AISWARYA SANKAR, D/O. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
3B, OMEGA CROWN FLAT, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR

5 SUJITH S. NAIR, H/O. AISWARYA SANKAR,
3B, OMEGA CROWN FLAT, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR.

6 DEEPA SANKAR, W/O. UDAYASANKAR, SREE
DHANALAKSHMI NIVAS, PANAMANNA SOUTH P.O,
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD

1ST PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER, THE 4TH PETITIONER.

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JAYARAM
SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN K.B.

RESPONDENT/S:
::2::
Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031

2 SALINI SREENIVASAN,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O. SREENIVASAN, SREEVALLI, T.V.R.A 161(A)
SASTHAMKONAM, ALATHARA ROAD, SREEKARYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 017

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON
R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SUNIL
R2 BY ADV. SRI.THEJAN RAJ

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SRI.V.AJAKUMAR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.10.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7794/2017, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::3::
Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA,
1941

Crl.MC.No.7794 OF 2017

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 75/2016 OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR

PETITIONER/S:

1 SHALINI, AGED 35 YEARS,D/O.SREENIVASAN,
RESIDING AT ARAVALLY HOUSE,POTHUJANAM ROAD,
KUMARAPURAM,MEDICAL
COLLEGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 SREENIVASAN, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER.C.R, RESIDING AT -DO-.

3 ELAZABETH SREENIVASAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O.SREENIVASAN,RESIDING AT-DO-.

4 ABHILASH DAS, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.SIVADASAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL
HOUSE, PANNIKODE.P.O, KOZHIKODE,PIN-673602.

5 ANEESH, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O.SIVADASAN,AT -DO-.

BY ADVS.
SRI.V.AJAKUMAR
SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
::4::
Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

2 UMASANKARA.C.A , AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.K.VIJAYAKUMARI, RESIDING AT
PANNAMANNA SOUTH.P.O, OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,

FLAT NO.38,OMEGA CROWN,POOKUNNAM,TRISSUR-2,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
AISWARYA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.VIJAYAKUMARI,
RESIDING AT -DO-.SOWBHAGYA,
HOUSE NO.23 A, ALTHARA NAGAR,
VAZHUTHACADU,SASTHAMANGALAM
VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.10.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2412/2019(B), THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::5::
Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————–
Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017
———————————
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2019.

ORDER

The impugned criminal proceedings in these two cases have

arisen predominantly on account of the matrimonial disputes

between the husband, who is the 1st petitioner in

Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019, who has been arrayed as the

2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 and the wife, who is

arrayed as the 1st petitioner Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 and as the 2 nd

respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019. Now, it appears that

consequent to the mediation efforts undertaken by the couple and

their family members and their relatives, the spouses have decided

to put a quietus to the ‘war’ between them and decided to bury the

hatchet and decided to dissolve the martial relationship and a

comprehensive settlement has been arrived at between the parties

and also for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings

between them. The husband and some of his family members are

the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019, which has been filed for

quashing the impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.64/2017
::6::

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Thiruvananthapuram, which has been initiated by the 2 nd

respondent therein (wife) and the offences alleged therein are

punishable under Secs.498A, 354B, 506(ii), 120B r/w 34 of the

I.P.C. Whereas the wife and her immediate family members have

filed Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 so as to seek quashment of the

impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.75/2016 on the file of

the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, which has been

initiated at the instance of the 2 nd respondent therein (husband)

and the offences alleged therein are those punishable under

Secs.420, 497 34 of the I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel for the

petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019 as well as for the 2 nd

respondent in Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017, Sri.V.Ajakumar, learned

counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 as well as for

the 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019 and Sri.Saigi Jacob

Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State in

these two matters.

3. Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners in these 2 cases that the entire disputes between the
::7::

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

parties have been harmoniously resolved through mediation

undertaken through District Mediation Centre, Kozhikode and a

copy of the mediation settlement agreement dated 9.8.2009

entered into between the parties has been produced as Anx-A6 in

Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019. Various clauses have been incorporated in

Anx-A6 mediation settlement agreement for settlement of various

disputes and the relevant clause in Anx-A6 mediation settlement

agreement to the extent it concerns the present cases is that both

the parties fully agree to withdraw the criminal proceedings which

have led to institution of C.C.No.64/2017 on the file of the Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, and the

proceedings in C.C.No.75/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, as against all the accused

persons therein in those 2 cases may be quashed by this Court on

the ground of settlement between the parties. The learned

Prosecutor has also does not have any serious objection to the said

course of action as the mediation has been successfully finalised

through the District Mediation Centre.

4. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that,

in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences,
::8::

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers

under Sec.482 of the SectionCr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the

whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not

serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement

between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the

prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other

than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case

ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and

on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the

affidavits of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts

and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the

cases as in SectionGian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC

(Cri) 160 (2012) 10 SCC 303 and SectionNarinder Singh and others v.

State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more

particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to

consider the prayer for quashment.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice in

Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019 that the impugned proceedings in

C.C.No.64/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
::9::

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, and all further proceedings arising

therefrom pending against the accused persons therein will stand

quashed.

6. Further it is also ordered in Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 that

impugned proceedings in C.C.No.75/2016 on the file of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur and all further proceedings

arising therefrom pending against all the accused persons therein

will stand quashed.

The respective parties will produce certified copies of this

common order before the respective trial court concerned in these

matters for necessary information.

With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.Cs

will stand finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
Judge.

bkn/-

::10::

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 7794/2017

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2412/2019
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.

64/2017 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL 1ST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY

CW 1, 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN/COMPLAINT,
SALINI SREENIVASAN, IN C.M.P NO.

4447/2016/CC 64/2017 ON THE FILES OF
JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY
CW.2, ELIZABETH MOTHER OF 2ND

RESPONDENT HEREIN/COMPLAINT, IN C.M.P
NO. 4447/2016/CC 64/2017 ON THE FILES
OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
EXECUTED BY 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND
RESPONDENT HEREIN AT KOZHIKODE
MEDIATION CENTRE IN O.P 573/2015,
FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE.

ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.
75/2016 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 9.8.2019

EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT.

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 7794/2017
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
(C.M.P.NO.6037/2015).

ANNEXURE 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
4/6/16 IN C.M.P.NO.6037/15 (C.C.NO.75/2016)

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE COMLAINANT

ANNEXURE 3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE
CW2.

ANNEXURE 3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE CW3

ANNEXURE 3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE CW4

ANNEXURE 3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE CW5

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
(C.M.P.NO.4447/2016)

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/1/2017 IN

C.M.P.NO.4447/2016 (C.C.NO.65/2017).

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