Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Biju K Ulahannan vs State Of Kerala on 9 March, 2011

Author: Thomas P.Joseph

Bench: Thomas P.Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 738 of 2011()


1. BIJU K ULAHANNAN,S/O.K.M.ULAHANNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SANTHAMMA, W/O. K.M.ULAHANNAN,
3. K.M.ULAHANNAN, S/O.MATHAYI
4. BOBBY K ULAHANNAN,S/O.K.M.ULAHANNAN,
5. PREETHA W/O.BOBBY K ULAHANNAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

3. BEENA BIJU, D/O. ANNAMMA THOMAS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.LIJU. M.P

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :09/03/2011

 O R D E R
                   THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
            ====================================
                    Crl. M.C. No.738 of 2011
            ====================================
          Dated this the 09th   day of March,     2011


                           O R D E R

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.104 of 2010 of Vandiperiyar Police Station and C.C. No.563 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Peermade for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by respondent No.3 and forwarded to the police for investigation. Annexure-A3 is the final report submitted by the police. Petitioners request to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached between petitioners and respondent No.3, wife of the first petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, third respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.3 have confirmed the settlement and authenticity of signature of respective parties in Crl. M.A. No.1489 of 2011. It is revealed from the compounding petition as well as the statement of counsel on both sides that the dispute is settled between the parties and pursuant to that, respondent No.3 is residing with the first CRL.M.C. No.738 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner, her husband. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition.

Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-III, final report in Crime No.104 of 2010, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C. No.563 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Peermade against petitioners are quashed.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv