Kerala High Court
Dayas Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 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
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.1007 OF 2020(E)
AGAINST C.C.No. 44/2018 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT,
KOLLAM
CRIME NO.3606 OF 2017 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:
1 DAYAS THOMAS,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS FRANCIS KOTTAYIL HOUSE, EZHAKADAVU P.O.
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.
2 THOMAS FRANCIS,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. FRANCIS, KOTTAYIL HOUSE,
EZHAKADAVU P.O. MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.
3 FLORA THOMAS,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. THOMAS FRANCIS KOTTAYIL HOUSE,
EZHAKADAVU P.O. MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.
4 DAYANA,
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O. THOMAS FRANCIS KOTTAYIL HOUSE,
EZHAKADAVU P.O. MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.BETSON P.KUNJAPPAN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 692031
2 STEPHY V SUBASH,
D/O. SUBASH VARGHESE, MADONNA, JANAKEEYA NAGAR 224,
VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, PATTATHANAM CHERI, KOLLAM.
R2 BY ADV. DIVYA B.NAIR, PP
SRI.AMJAD ALI, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.1007 OF 2020(E)
2
Crl.M.C.No.1007 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
ORDER
This is a proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure - A2 Final Report pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in C.C.No.44 of 2018.
2. The petitioners are the accused in the said case. The case was one registered under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is seen that the petitioners and the de facto complainant of the crime have amicably settled the disputes. An affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant is part of the records.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.
5. It is seen that the dispute arose on account of the matrimonial discord between the de facto complainant Crl.MC.No.1007 OF 2020(E) 3 and her husband, the first accused. Though the matter is settled between the parties, I have examined the accusation in the case and found that this is a matter that could be settled and closed in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58 and Gian singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure - A2 Final Report pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in C.C.No.44 of 2018 and all further proceedings thereto are quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
PV Crl.MC.No.1007 OF 2020(E) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 3606 OF 2017 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION DATED 2/11/2012.
ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 3606/2017 DATED 2/11/2017.
ANNEXURE 3 PRINTOUT OF STATUS OF M.C. NO.
243/2017 IN JFCM II, KOLLAM FROM E- COURT SERVICES DATED NIL.
ANNEXURE 4 NOTARISED COMPROMISE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.01.2020.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL