Kerala High Court
Lalidharan vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2016
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3557 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 1187/2014 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
LALIDHARAN
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN,
RESIDING AT PANAYILVEEDU, T.C.22/322(1)
ATTUKAL, MANAKKADU VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SANTHI
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
2. ATHIRA R.
AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. RAVIRAJAN POTTI,
NEELAMANA, ELAMPATHADAM, MUDAKKAL.P.O.
AVANAVANCHERY, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHAMMI VIJAYAN
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3557 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET AND FINAL
REPORT IN CRIME NO.1187/2014 OF FORT POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. M. C. No. 3557 of 2016
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1187/2014 of Fort Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 321, 322, 323, 340, 341, 342, 354, 498A and 34 IPC.
2. The petitioner herein had married the defacto complainant on 11.03.2010 and thereafter they have been living together. The matrimonial relationship between the parties got strained and a complaint was laid by the wife alleging matrimonial cruelty. After investigation, final report was laid and the matter is now pending as C.C. No.3322/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II. Crl.M.C. is filed to quash the proceedings.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioner herein is not involved in any other crime. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the disputes between the parties have been settled and that she has Crl. M. C. No. 3557 of 2016 2 been instructed to submit accordingly in terms of the settlement made in the affidavit along with Crl.M.C.
5. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to hold that the dispute between the parties is only a private dispute and no larger public interest survives. Hence, I am inclined to allow the Crl.M.C. Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.3322/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
Pn