Sunday, May 26, 2013

kerala HC quash, many NRI accused! 5 lakhs official deal, how many more lakhs milked ??

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

      PRESENT:

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

    THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/27TH POUSHA 1934

    Crl.MC.No. 3580 of 2012 ()
      ..........................
    AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.82/2011 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KOTTAYAM


    PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1,2,4,5,6:
    ..................................................

 1. THOMAS.K.THOMAS
    AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.ANNAMMA JOSEPH, 8318-264TH STREET
    FLORAL PARK, NEW YORK-11004,U.S.A.

 2. ANNAMMA JOSEPH AGED 71 YEARS
    8318-264TH STREET,FLORAL PARK,NEW YORK-11004
    U.S.A.

 3. SISILY VARGHESE AGED 56 YEARS
    W/O.VARGHESE,KAKKARETHPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE
    NECHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

 4. K.U.VARGHESE AGED 69 YEARS
    KAKKARETHPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, NECHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM
    ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

 5. ANIL K.THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS
    S/O.ANNAMMA JOSEPH,8318-264TH STREET, FLORAL PARK
    NEW YORK-11004,U.S.A.

    BY ADV. SRI SAGEER IBRAHIM
    BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

   COMPLAINANT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
   ..................................................................

 1. SOOSAN ABRAHAM, AGED 36 YEARS
    D/O.N.A.CHACKO,MALIYEKKAL HOUSE,CHOORAKKULAM
    UPPER DIVISION,VANDIPERIYAR,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

 2. STATE OF KERALA
    REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

    R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.POULOSE
    R1 BY ADV. SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C
    R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H. JASMINE

    THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2013,
   THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 3580 of 2012

                                  APPENDIX




PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :


ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.82/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM.

ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHEET OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, KOTTAYAM IN C.C.NO.82/2011

ANNEXURE-C: AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.11.2012 SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.


                                                          // TRUE COPY //


                                                          P.A TO JUDGE
sou.



    T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Crl. M.C.No. 3580 of 2012
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

     
                                O R D E R


       The petitioners are respectively accused 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in C.C. No.82/2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam. The prayer is to quash the proceedings in the light of the settlement between the petitioners and the first respondent.

       2. The first respondent married the first petitioner herein in the year 2010. Subsequent difference of opinion arose between the parties which led to the first respondent filing a private complaint as per Annexure A1. Annexure A2 is the certified copy of the proceedings sheet of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court.

       3. As part of the settlement and in full and final satisfaction of all the claims of the first respondent, she received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the first petitioner and it is stated that at present the first respondent has no grievance against the petitioners. Annexure A3 is the affidavit filed by the first respondent wherein the fact that she has received Rs.5 lakhs is mentioned. It is stated that the receipt of amount is towards full and final settlement of her claim. It is also stated that he has no further grievance against her husband/first petitioner and other accused and she is not intending to proceed further with the above complaint.

       4. Heard learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the first respondent also submits that all the claims have been satisfied and there is no further grievance in the matter.

       5.  The offences alleged are under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. In the light of the settlement between the parties, there will not be any useful purpose in proceeding with the criminal case.            The criminal complaint arose purely due to a matrimonial dispute between the parties.  Therefore, I am satisfied that this is a fit case     in which the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Kerala (2012 (4) KLT 108 - SC).

       Therefore, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.       

The proceedings in C.C. No.82/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam will stand quashed. No costs.

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

kav/