Kerala High Court
Dinu S Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2020
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA,
1941
Crl.MC.No.89 OF 2020(A)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 195/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I MUVATUPUZHA
CRIME NO.1903/2015 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 4:
1 DINU S KUMAR,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, EANTHUNKAL,
ANIKKAD, AVOLI.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 SHANU K MUHAMMED,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.P.MUHAMMED,
KALLELI PUTHENPURAYIL, CHIRAPPADI BHAGAM,
ANIKKAD, AVOLI.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3 BINU S KUMAR,
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, EANTHUNKAL,
ANIKKAD, AVOLI.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 VINOD.U.,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAMN NAIR, LAKSHMI
BABY SADANAM, CHIRAPADI BHAGAM, ANIKKAD,
AVOLI.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C
Crl.M.C. No.89 of 2020 2
RESPONDENTS/STATE/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (CRIME NO.1903/2015
OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT).
2 SHEEJA,
AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.NISHAD.M.S.,
MULLANKUZHIYIL, PUTHENPURA, AVOLI.P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686667.
R2 BY ADV. S.RAJEEV
SRI T.R.RENJITH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.89 of 2020 3
Crl.M.C.No.89 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
ORDER
This is a proceedings instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure - I final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto now pending as CC No.195 of 2016 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Muvattupuzha.
2. The petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in the said case. The case was one instituted at the instance of the second respondent under Sections 294(b), 323, 447 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is seen that the second respondent has settled her disputes with the petitioners and an affidavit sworn to by her to that effect has been produced as Annexure II.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the second respondent.
Crl.M.C. No.89 of 2020 4
5. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Gian singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, insofar as the offences alleged against the petitioners are only offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 447 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, I am of the view that this is an appropriate case where this court has to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-I final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners pending as CC No.195 of 2016 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Muvattupuzha are quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
YKB Crl.M.C. No.89 of 2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO.195/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MUVATTUPUZHA.
ANNEXURE II NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.1.2020 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE