Sunday, June 2, 2013

498a filed, 4 lakhs collected, case quashed; doesn't that sound pretty professional. Now don't ask whats d REAL amount, I don't know!


thoughts
***************************

  • a husband is accused of henious crimes , dowry demands what not
  • then comes a compromise
  • then comes a quash
  • what is the use of a beneficial legislation if the real truth is NOT found out !!
  • record # of 498a cases are ending in quash !!
  • this is the third or fourth I am reading in a day or two in just one bench of one HC ....then imagine what an assembly line of cases are waiting all over INDIA




****************Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1251 of 2006 ( )****************
****************************************************************




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/6TH ASWINA 1934

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1251 of 2006 ( )
********************************
CRA.243/2002 of ADDL. DIST. COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD
CC.53/1999 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
***************************************************

SHOUKATH ALI, S/O. SAITHALI,
KUTTEPARAMBIL VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVENGAPPURA
MALAPPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
***************************

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


BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS


THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:




ds



N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
******************************************
Crl. R.P. No: 1251 of 2006
******************************************
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012


O R D E R


This Criminal R.P. is filed by the former husband challenging the concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence passed against him for offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No:317/2001. It is stated that the entire matter which was pending between the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein was settled and that in terms of the settlement, Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner herein to the de facto complainant. That fact was recorded by this Court in full and final settlement of all the claims. It was also agreed that this Cr.R.P. No:1251/2006 will be withdrawn by the defacto complainant.

2.    In view of the fact that the parties have already settled the matter, this revision petition will stand allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner, herein. In the result this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,

JUDGE

//True Copy//


P.A. to Judge jjj

I