one more abla nari gets a quash at Kerala HC, after settlement, thats a record third quash in a day or so!!

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

• a 72 year old man (husband's father) and his wife are accused
• 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 !!
• pertinent to note that ".....Several other proceedings also were pending before other forums between the de facto complainant and her in laws and such cases have been settled after mediation, ..."  !!!!!
  

***************Crl.MC.No. 2792 of 2012 ()**************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

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

Crl.MC.No. 2792 of 2012 ()
**************************
CC.NO.756/2010 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM

CRIME NO.942/2010 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION
******************************

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

1. A.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,S/O. RAMAN PILLAI, AGED 72,
RESIDING AT VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, IRUMPANAM.P.O.,
PIN - 682 309,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2. PRASNNAKUMARI, AGED 61,
W/O.A.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, IRUMPANAM.P.O.,
PIN - 682 309,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

3. RAMESH.V.R,AGED 33, S/O.A.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, IRUMPANAM.P.O.,
PIN - 682 309,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.ELDHO
SRI.JIJO THOMAS


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
************************************************

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -COCHIN- 682 011.

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, HILL PALACE.P.O.,
PIN - 682 301.

3. INDUJA.I,
AGED 23, D/O. INDIRAMMA AND W/O.V.R. RAJESH,
RESIDING AT VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, IRUMPANAM.P.O.,
PIN - 682 309,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts


APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEX A1    COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.756/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.

ANNEX A2    COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DATED 17/9/2010 IN CRL.M.P.NO.767/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,ERNAKULAM

ANNEX A3    COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 17/09/2010 IN CRL.M.P.NO.767/2010 OF THE LOK ADALATH, ERNAKULAM

ANNEX A4    COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2010 IN CRL.M.P.NO.767/2010 OF THE ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.

ANNEX A5    COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6/8/2012

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:              NIL


/TRUE COPY/



P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts



S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
***********************************************
Crl.M.C No.2792 OF 2012
*******************************************************
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012


ORDER



Petitioners are the accused in a pending case numbered as C.C No.756 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.

They are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Hill Palace Police Station, Kochi. Crime in the aforesaid case was registered on complaint of matrimonial cruelty and harassment by the in laws and the close relatives of the husband, demanding dowry.

Several other proceedings also were pending before other forums between the de facto complainant and her in laws and such cases have been settled after mediation, is the submission of the counsel for the petitioners, which is endorsed by the counsel appearing for the third respondent/de facto complainant as well.

An affidavit has been also sworn to by the de facto complainant asserting the aforesaid statement made by her counsel and also stating that in view of the settlement effected she is not any more interested in prosecuting the petitioners.     

Since the offence imputed against the petitioners could be treated as personal arising out of the disputes between the close relatives over one or other problems connected with the matrimonial relationship of the third respondent with her husband, and not affecting the public at large, I find, in view of the settlement effected, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is not necessary, more so not advisable. The apex court has held in "Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab" (2012(4) KLT 108(SC)) that in cases of this nature invoking of Section 482 of the Code for quashing the criminal proceedings will be justified even if the offences imputed against the petitioners do not come under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.            

Criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C No.756 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam are quashed under Section 482 of the Code.

Petition allowed.

vdv                           S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE