Kerala High Court
R.Jayalakshmi vs Nil on 19 March, 2013
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/28TH PHALGUNA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 1274 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
CC.1490/2009 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM
CRIME NO. 973/2007 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
--------------------------------------
R.JAYALAKSHMI, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.LATE DR.PARAMESWARAN, TRUSTEE
DEVI ACADEMY EDUCATIONAL TRUST
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1/5, ALAPPAKKAM ROAD
VALASAVAKKAM, MADRAS-600087.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. USHAKAMATH,, AGED 49 YEARS
W/O.SREEKUMAR, B.SANTHI NIVAS, MADACKKAL
CHERTHALA, NOW RESIDING AT DOOR NO.10/304 A
KRISHNATHEERTHAM, MATHIRAPPILLY ROAD, KAPPELA
CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682034.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAMMI NAVAS
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1274 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
----------------------------------
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME
NO.973 OF 2007 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION.
ANEXURE A2 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT CRIME NO.973 OF 2007 OF HILL
PALACE POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
dlk
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 1274 of 2013
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2013
O R D E R
The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.1490/2009 pending on the files of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam arising from Crime No.973/2007 of Hill Palace Police Station. The co-accused of the petitioner was none other than her husband and he is no more. They were allegedly committed an offence under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the subsequent developments which is evident from Annexure-E affidavit sworn in by the second respondent/the defacto complainant I do not think it necessary to delve in to the facts or contentions in detail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Annexure-A2 would reveal that the petitioner along with her deceased husband was charged for an offence under Section 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Crl.M.C.No. 1274 of 2013 2 Going by the provisions under Section 320, Cr.P.C. the offence under section 320 is compoundable at the instance of the person who was cheated. Indisputably, in this case it is the second respondent who was cheated and therefore in terms of the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. he is competent to compound the said offence as against the petitioner herein. Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent would reveal that the entire disputes which ultimately constrained the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioner and her deceased husband were settled amicably. It is also stated therein that in view of the said circumstances he got objection in quashing the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.1490/2009 on the files of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam based on Annexure -A2. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent with Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent would undoubtedly go to show that the entire dispute that led to registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled amicable between the Crl.M.C.No. 1274 of 2013 3 petitioner and the second respondent. In the said circumstances in the light of the decision in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab reported in 2012(4)KLT 108 (SC) this Court is having a duty to prevent continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner as it has become absolutely unnecessary. Permitting continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in such circumstances, would amount of abuse of process of court and would also result in shere wastage of the invaluable time of the court. In this circumstances this Criminal M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report laid in Crime No. 973/2007 of Hill Palace Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1490/2009 pending on the files of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk Crl.M.C.No. 1274 of 2013 4