Jijimon vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jijimon vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2020

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941

                   Crl.MC.No.14 OF 2020(B)

 AGAINST C.C.NO.476/2018 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF JUDICIAL
          MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM

 CRIME NO.2130/2017 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2:

     1       JIJIMON
             AGED 32 YEARS
             S/O.JUSTIN, 125, ANDARAPARAMBIL VEEDU,
             VELANKANNI NAGAR, THEKKUBHAGOM CHERIYIL,
             MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

     2       JASMIN
             AGED 53 YEARS
             W/O.JUSTIN, 125, ANDARAPARAMBIL VEEDU,
             VELANKANNI NAGAR, THEKKUBHAGOM CHERIYIL,
             MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

             BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

     1       STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
             COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

     2       ASHLY,
             D/O.JOSEPH MORIS, AGED 29 YEARS, ST.JOSEPH
             HOUSE, SAKTIKULANGARA.P.O.,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT-691581.

             R2 BY ADV. ANIL K.MOHAMMED
             R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C. No.14 of 2020              2



                             ORDER

This is a proceedings instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure - A final report in CC No.476 of 2018 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - II, Kollam.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case instituted at the instance of the second respondent for offences punishable under Sections 498A 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 to that effect has been filed as Annexure - B.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the second respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent Crl.M.C. No.14 of 2020 3 affirmed that Annexure - B affidavit is one sworn to by the second respondent and submitted that the second respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer of the petitioners.

6. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Gian singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, 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 - A final report in CC No.476 of 2018 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - II, Kollam are quashed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

DK Crl.M.C. No.14 of 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2130/17 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE B NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE DK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court