SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinu Gopal vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.6960 OF 2019(H)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 828/2017 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

CRIME NO.759/2015 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

VINU GOPAL
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN,
PULIYANIKKAL LAKSHAM VEEDU,
ALTHARAMOODU, SARKARA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
(MOOLAMKUNNAM PURATHU VEEDU, PERUMGUZHI DESOM, AZHOOR
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.)

BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

RESPONDENTS/STATE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 SHEEJA,
AGED 34, D/O. BABU,
PULIYANIKKAL LAKSHAM VEEDU,
ALTHARAMOODU, SARKARA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 102.

R2 BY ADV. A.CHANDRA BABU
SRI.P.N.SUMODU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.6960 OF 2019(H)

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.6960 of 2019
———————————–
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in

Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.759/2015 of Chirayinkeezhu Police

Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been registered for offences

punishable under Secs.498A and 307 of the SectionIPC, which led to the

institution of S.C.No.828/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,

Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner herein is the husband of the

2nd respondent. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused

harassed the de facto complainant demanding more dowry both physically

and mentally. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the

petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent de facto complainant have been

settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent has sworn to Annexure-A2

affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the

entire disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection for

quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the
Crl.MC.No.6960 OF 2019(H)

3

petitioner and now they are living together. It is in the light of these

aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the

prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against him.

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
Crl.MC.No.6960 OF 2019(H)

4

in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

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

impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report in S.C.No.828/2017 before the

Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime

No.759/2015 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, and

all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will

stand quashed.

4. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order to the

Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned.

Office of Advocate General will forward a copy of this order to the

Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information.

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
vgd
Crl.MC.No.6960 OF 2019(H)

5

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
S.C.828/2017 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Leave a Reply

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

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