Sunday, June 2, 2013

though lower court convicted,sentanced husband, parties let 2 do panchayat,bargains,payments & quash case!! isn't this "beneficial" legislation, and something benefitting women ? THE bitter truth of fire 498a, bargain and withdraw 498a!! Why should the taxpayer pay for this ??


Thoughts
************************
  • Case filed by wife
  • lower court convicted, sentenced husband,
  • Still parties allowed to do panchayat,bargains,payments etc
  • Ablaa naari (and hapless hubby) now appears and say "want quash "
  • How many women were harassed for one woman to make money  ? THE bitter truth of fire 498a, bargain and withdraw 498a!!
  • Why should the taxpayer pay for this ??



*************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 It was also agreed that this Cr.R.P. No:1251/2006 will be withdrawn by the defacto complainant.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




********* tags **********


#Fire_make_money_quash_498a #Money_making_498a #How_can_a_crime_be_compromised_with_money? #Why_compromise_when_NON_compoundable #what_purpose_if_all_ends_in_panchayat?