SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vibeesh vs The State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

CRL.MC.NO.8293 OF 2019(F)

CC 3129/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
PARAPPANANGADI

CRIME NO.1709/2014 OF PARAPPANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 2:

1 VIBEESH, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O PAROL VALSAN, PAROL HOUSE, NEDUVA AMSOM DESOM,
NEDUVA POST, PARAPPANANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2 BABY, AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O PAROL VALSAN, PAROL HOUSE, NEDUVA AMSOM DESOM,
NEDUVA POST, PARAPPANANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018.

2 SANDRA, AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O BALAN.K.P, “SANDRAM”, KANIYAPURATHOOT,
PADINHATTUMURI AMSOM DESOM, KAKKODI POST,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 611.

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303.

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 AND R3
SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
————————————
Crl.M.C. No. 8293 of 2019
————————————
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 2 in the

impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.1709/2014 of Parappanangadi

Police Station, Malappuram district, registered for offences

punishable under Secs.498A, 120B 34 of the SectionIPC, which has led

to the institution of Anx.A2 Final Report in C.C. No. 3129/2014 on

the file of the JFCM-I, Parappanangadi. It is stated that now the

entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent

defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2 nd

respondent has sworn to Anx.A3 affidavit before this Court,

wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with

the petitioners and that she has no objection for quashment of the

impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It

is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred

the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned

criminal proceedings against them.

Crl.M.C. No. 8293 / 2019

..3..

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

in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences,

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

affidavit 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
Crl.M.C. No. 8293 / 2019

..4..

this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

3. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that

the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.1709/2014 of

Parappanangadi Police Station, Malappuram district, which has led

to the institution of Anx.A2 Final Report in C.C. No. 3129/2014 on

the file of the JFCM-I, Parappanangadi, and all further proceedings

arising therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand

quashed.

4. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this

order before Investigating Officer concerned and the competent

court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will

forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned

for information.

With these observations and directions, the above

Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE

MMG
Crl.M.C. No. 8293 / 2019

..5..

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 22.11.2014 IN CRIME NO
1709/2014 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE
STATION

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED
19.12.2014 IN CRIME NO 1709/2014 OF
PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.10.2019 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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