Kerala High Court
Pranav vs State Of Kerala on 12 October, 2018
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 20TH ASWINA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6178 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 495/2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT.-I,ATTINGAL
CRIME NO. 1614/2017 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 PRANAV
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O BAHULEYAN, SUJANILAYAM, MANNARA,MANNARA WARD,
ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695584
2 BAHULEYAN
AGED 51 YEARS
SUJANILAYAM,MANNARA,
MANNARA WARD,ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695584.
3 PRAVEEN
AGED 25 YEARS
SUJANILAYAM,MANNARA,MANNARA WARD,ANDOORKONAM
VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695584.
BY ADV. SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHENCODE
POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
2 CHANDRABABU
AGED 61 YEARS
PUTHENPURA VEEDU,KURUMANDAL,PARAVOOR,PARAVOOR
VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691301.
3 NEENA CHANDRA, AGED 22, D/O. CHANDRA BABU,
PUTHENPURA VEEDU, KURUMANDAL,
PERAVOOR, PARAVOOR VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691301.
CRL.M.C.6178/2018 2
BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G
OTHER PRESENT:
SREEJA V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.6178/2018 3
O R D E R
The 1st petitioner is the son of the 2nd petitioner and the 3rd petitioner is the brother of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner married the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent is her father. It is alleged that on the date of marriage i.e., on 23.11.2017 the petitioners herein demanded a Maruthi Swift Car as dowry. This led to matrimonial disputes and the registration of Crime No. 1614/2017 of Pothencode Police Station. After investigation, final report was laid and the matter is now pending as C.C. No.495/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 420, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Claiming that the petitioners have now resolved the dispute with the 2nd and 3rd respondents and that the matrimonial relationship has been legally brought to an end, the Crl.M.C is filed. To buttress his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents relied on Annexure A2 and A3 affidavits. Both the affidavits affirm the CRL.M.C.6178/2018 4 settlement. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the parties have resolved their disputes and intimation has been given to the investigating agency.
Essentially, the dispute is in the nature of a matrimonial dispute. Larger questions of public interest do not arise in this case. Hence, this is a fit case in which the provision under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the entire proceedings. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.495/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal as against the petitioners herein stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE al/-
CRL.M.C.6178/2018 5
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.495/2018 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.5.2018.
ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 9.5.2018.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.S TO JUDGE AL/-