Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sandeep T.M vs Shamrin Venugopal on 1 February, 2015

Author: P. Ubaid

Bench: P.Ubaid

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

              TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/1ST POUSHA, 1937

                                           Crl.MC.No. 7996 of 2015 ()
                                                ---------------------------
      CRIME NO.195/2015 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT
                                           =====================

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------

            SANDEEP T.M., AGED 36 YEARS
            S/O.JOY, IIND FLOOR, DOWN TOWN
            THALAP, KANNUR-670 002.

            BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT/STATE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. SHAMRIN VENUGOPAL, AGED 35 YEARS
            D/O.VENUGOPAL, VYSHNAVAM, NEAR POTHERI HOTEL
            THALAP, KANNUR-670 002.

        2. STATE OF KERALA
            REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
            ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 031.

            R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
            R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA M.T.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-12-2015, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 7996 of 2015 ()


                                              APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
------------------------------------

ANNEXURE A1-                   SERVED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST
                               RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPT. OF POLICE,
                               KANNUR.

ANNEXURE A2-                   SERVED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME
                               NO.195/2015 DATED 01.02.2015 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE
                               STATION.

ANNEXURE A3-                   COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.06.2015 EXECUTED BY
                               THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4-                   COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP.851/2014 DATED 09.07.2015 OF THE
                               FAMILY COURT, KANNUR.

ANNEXURE A5-                   NOTARISED SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT,
                               WIFE.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------

NIL




                               // TRUE COPY //           P.A. TO JUDGE




SD



                              P. UBAID, J.
                 ---------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.C.No.7996 of 2015
                 ---------------------------------------
             Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2015

                               O R D E R

The petitioner seeks orders quashing the F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.195/2015 of the Kannur Town Police Station, registered under Section 498-A, on the complaint of one Shamrin Venugopal. Orders are sought on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant out of court. The de facto complainant Shamrin Venugopal is the 1st respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has filed affidavit to the effect that she has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and she has no grievance or complaint. Her affidavit shows that the whole matrimonial dispute stands resolved forever. It is submitted that the parties have parted ways in terms of settlement made out of court, and that they have also filed a joint application for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The claims also stand settled. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the prosecution be quashed.

2. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has Crl.M.C.. No. 7996/2015 2 held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution; be it at the crime stage, or at the trial stage, or even at the appellate or revision stage; if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, or if continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, I find a real case of settlement between the parties, and I also find that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court.

In the result, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.195/2015 of the Kannur Town Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sd/-

                                                     P. UBAID, JUDGE
sd

                  // True Copy //    P.A. to Judge