Kerala High Court
Beegum Linzy Aged 57 Years vs Sajikumar on 4 February, 2014
Author: N.K.Balakrishnan
Bench: N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/15TH MAGHA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1040 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------------
IN CC 398/10 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,NEDUMANGAD
CRIME NO. 103/2010 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4, 6 TO 13:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BEEGUM LINZY AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.LAILA BEEVI,
SASTHAMKUNNU VEEDU, PANTHUVILA, THOLIKKUZHI, ADAYAMAN,
PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. BASHEER KUNJU AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, KAKKANIKARA, MOONNUMUKKU
BLOCK NO.811, PANGOD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. USMANKHAN AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.MEERA SAHIB,
KULATHINKARA VEEDU, KOCHALUMOOD,
PANGOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. SALEEM AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SANILA COTTAGE
NEAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PANGOD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. HUSSAIN AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,
KOCHULIYANCODE VEEDU, ANAKUDIMURI,
PANGOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
6. SHAMEER AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,
THENGUMPANAPUTHAN VEEDU, AYIRAVALLIKKUNNU,
MELEMUKKU, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
7. SHEFEEQ AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KASIM, P M HOUSE,
PULIPPARA, AANAKUDIMURI, PANGOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
8. BAIJU AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SHAFI, BUSHRA MANZIL, POLICE MUKKU
KATTUMPURAM, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
9. NAZEEM AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SULTHAN BASHEER, PP XIV/1520,
NAZEEJA MANZIL, MANAKKOD, PANGOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
10. YAHITYA AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF,
JASMIN MANZIL, PAZHAVILA, PANGOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
11. NAZEER AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER, SULTHAN MANZIL,
NEAR KALLARA MARKET, KALLARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
12. AZEEM AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SHANUDEEN, VADAKKEKARAPUTHAN
VEEDU, PUDUSSERRY, MANGOD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P
COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SAJIKUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.SATHEESAN, SATHEESH BHAVAN, NEAR AKG SMARAKAM
NANDAYVANAM, NEDUMPARAMB, NAGAROOR VILLAGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. SANILA, AGED 29 YEARS
W/O.SAJIKUMAR, PRADHEESH BHAVAN, ONIVARAM
VALAKKAD, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PANGOD POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-
2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1040 of 2014 ()
--------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A- TRUE COPY OF CHARGE IN CRIME NO.103/2010 OF
PANGOD POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B- ORIGINAL OF AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C- ORIGINAL OF AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------- NIL
// True copy //
P A to Judge
das
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
==========================
Crl.M.C. No. 1040 of 2014
===================================
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2014
ORDER
Petitioners are accused in CC No.398/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Nedumangad. The offences alleged against them are under Secs.143, 147, 148, 149, 506(ii), 120(b) and 363 IPC.
2. The second respondent was married by the first respondent, which was against the wishes of petitioners and the deceased mother of the second respondent. The deceased mother was earlier arrayed as the fifth accused. When she was in hospital, the second respondent was stated to have been abducted by the other petitioners. But since the marriage between respondents 1 and 2 had already taken place, and since the second respondent was not amenable to change the stand which she had already taken, it is submitted that she was let off. -: 2 :- Crl.M.C. No.1040/2014
3. Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by their counsel. Affidavits have been filed to the effect that they have settled the matter out of court and that respondents are not intending to proceed further in the matter.
4. It is submitted by both sides that the petitioners are not in anyway interfering with the matrimonial life of respondents 1 and 2 and that there will be no dispute hereafter with regard to that matrimonial matters. As such the parties have settled the matter. Recording the said submission made by the learned counsel and in the light of the affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 2, further proceedings in CC 398/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, will stand quashed.
This petition is hence, allowed.
Sd/-
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE das