Kerala High Court
Mubarak vs State Of Kerala
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/25TH SRAVANA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 4861 of 2016
---------------------------
CC 177/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,ATTINGAL DATED
CRIME NO. 496/2015 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1:
-----------------------
MUBARAK
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI,
VILAYIL VEEDU, SASTHAVATTOM,
VEYILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. ANSEENA
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.SHAHIDA EDAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
VADASSERIKONAM, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695001
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.JACOB
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.T. SHEEBA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4861 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO. 177/2016 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ATTINGAL
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
KS.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
= = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C. No. 4861 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2016
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 496 of 2015 of Mangalapuram Police Station for offences punishable under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent, who was married the petitioner, alleging matrimonial cruelty, laid a complaint. Crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid. The matter is now pending as C.C.No.177 of 2016 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. In the meanwhile the parties are stated to have settled their disputes. Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner contending that the parties have resolved their disputes and no larger public interest is involved. Learned counsel for the second respondent relying on Annexure-A2 submitted that the disputes have been amicably and voluntarily settled between the parties. It was CRMC 4861/2016 2 stated that there was no necessity in continuing the above proceedings.
Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and the instructions is that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the dispute is purely of a personal nature and no larger public interest is involved. Hence, I allow the prayer.
In the result, the Crl.M.C.is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 2016 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal will stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
ks JUDGE
True copy
P.S. TO JUDGE