Kerala High Court
Jamal vs Rubeena on 13 August, 2018
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 4744 of 2018
CC 328/2018 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATES COURT-I MUVATUPUZHA
CRIME NO. 4090/2017 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8:
1 JAMAL,
S/O.MEERAN, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
2 NASAR,
S/O.MEERAN, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
3 NAVAS,
S/O.MEERAN, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
4 SHIYAS,
S/O.MEERAN, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
5 UMAIBA,
W/O.SHIYAS, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
6 SUNEESHA,
W/O.NAVAS, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
7 SHAJIDHA,
W/O.NASAR, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
8 KADHEEJA,
W/O.MEERAN, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADV.SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
Crl.MC.No. 4744 of 2018
RESPONDENTS:
1. RUBEENA,
W/O.JAMAL, VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE,
PUNNOPPADY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 686661
2. MUHAMMED SALE,
S/O.BASHEER, THENALIL HOUSE,
MULAVOOR VILLAGE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 686661
3. SHUKKOOR,
S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, THENALIL HOUSE,
MULAVOOR VILLAGE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 686661
4. BASHEER,
S/O.KUCHUMUHAMMED, THENALIL HOUSE,
MULAVOOR VILLAGE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 686661
5. ASSAINAR,
S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, THENALIL HOUSE,
MULAVOOR VILLAGE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 686661
6. SEENATH,
W/O.SHUKKOOR, THENALIL HOUSE,
MULAVOOR VILLAGE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 686661
7. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1-6 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SHAMEER
R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SREEJA V.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-18,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
MSP
Crl.MC.No. 4744 of 2018
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.4090 OF 2017 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE B- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE D- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE E- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE F- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE G- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
MSP
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
--------- ----------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 4744 OF 2018
--------- ----------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2018
ORDER
The first petitioner married the first respondent on 15/06/2008. Thereafter they lived together as husband and wife. The remaining petitioners are the relatives of the husband. Respondents 2 to 6 are the relatives of the wife. Respondents 1 to 6 alleged that, after the marriage, the petitioners herein subjected the first respondent to matrimonial cruelty. There is a specific allegation that on 23/10/17, the petitioners herein assaulted the respondents and caused bodily injuries. They also used abusive words. Pursuant to the complaint laid, crime was registered and after investigation final report was filed. The matter is now pending as C.C. 328 of 2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - I, Muvattupuzha, for offences punishable under section 498A,341,323,324,294(b) and 34 IPC.
2. Claiming that, the parties to the marriage have completely resolved their dispute and that they have restored their marital relationship, Crl.M.C. is laid. The petitioner relied on Annexure B to G affidavits, affirmed by the respondents 1 to 6. It Crl.M.C.No. 4744 OF 2018 -:2:- was submitted that, the respondents have no grievance against the petitioners herein. In the light of the settlement evidenced by above evidence and the affirmation of the learned Public Prosecutor that, the parties have resolved their dispute and intimation has been given to the investigating agency, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and to quash the criminal proceedings essentially for the reason that the dispute is in the nature of a family dispute.
Having considered this, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE msp