43yr old wife files 498a+divorce pack. Gets divorce etc &settles. HC quashes 498a. No punishment for wife. Order by Honourable Kerala HC. This Case has consumed 14 since 1999 but is shown as a settlement or compromise so probably one of them gave up the fight half way thru !!
******************************************************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NIC DOT IN SITE
******************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/19TH POUSHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3310 of 2006 ( )
********************************
(AGAINST THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN CC.223/99 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT*II, PATHANAMTHITTA, CONFIRMED IN CRA.26/2002
ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE(ADHOC) COURT*I,
PATHANAMTHITTA)
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
********************************************************************************
MOHANAN NAIR,S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR
CHARUVILAYIL VEEDU,VELLAPPARA,V KOTTAYAM MURI
PRAMADOM VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
***********************************************************************
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
2. SNEHALATHA,
AGED 43 YEARS,
D/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,
RESIDING AT EDANATTETH MELETHIL HOUSE,
OMALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
(ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED CRL.M.A.NO.8040/12 AND CRL.M.A.NO.83/13 IN CRL.R.P.NO.3310/06 DATED 9.1.2013)
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV
ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
*******************************
Crl.R.P.No.3310 of 2006
*******************************
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2013
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C.No.223 of 1999 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, which was instituted upon a police report filed in Crime No.320/98 of Konni police station against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court by judgment dated 22.12.2001 in C.C.No.223 of 1999 found that the first accused/the revision petitioner herein is guilty and accordingly he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. A2, who is the mother of the revision petitioner is acquitted. Challenging the above conviction and sentence the revision petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2002 before the court Additional District and Sessions Judge(Adhoc) Court-I, Pathanamthitta and the lower appellate Court by its judgment dated 24.02.2006 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence on the revision petitioner as imposed by the trial court. Challenging the above judgments of the courts below and the conviction and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, he preferred the present revision petition.
2. Now both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent submitted that besides the above proceedings, proceedings were also pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla for divorce, which was settled between the parties and accordingly divorce was granted and as part of the settlement the defacto complainant who is the additional 2nd respondent herein as also agreed to withdraw all proceedings initiated against the revision petitioner and she has no further grievance against the revision petitioner. It is under the above circumstances the defacto complainant has filed Crl.M.A No.83 of 2013 to get impleaded in the present revision petition, though the revision petitioner has filed Crl.M.A 8040 of 2012 to implead the defacto complainant. In terms of the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant in support of her petition to get impleaded in the revision petition and in the light of the submissions made by the counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondent, it is crystal clear that Crime No.320/98 of Konny police station was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at the instance of the additional 2nd respondent who was the defacto complainant and during the pendency of the case that after the judgment of the courts below and while the revision petition is pending before this Court, the matter is settled between the parties and accordingly as part of the settlement the divorce petition filed at the instance of the defacto complainant was allowed and by the same settlement the defacto complainant has also agreed to withdraw all criminal proceedings against the revision petitioner and as such she has no further grievance against the petitioner.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute particularly in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Jian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] the interest of justice requires to dispose of this revision petition giving effect to the settlement arrived at between the parties and adhere to proceed with the revision petition the interest of justice to allow the revision petition acquitting the revision petitioner.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed acquitting the revision petitioner from all the charges levelled against him and setting aside the judgment dated 22.12.2001 in CC.No.223/1999 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrte-II, Pathanamthitta and the judgment dated 24.02.2006 in Crl.Appeal No.26 of 2002 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge(Adhoc) Court-I, Pathanamthitta and the bail bond, if any,executed by the revision petitioner shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
JUDGE mns/
No comments:
Post a Comment