CRL.MC No. 3830 of 2008 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 498A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 446, 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. a) b) In the result, This Crl.M.C is allowed. C.C No.1111/2007 pending before the learned J.F.C.M-III, Thrissur against the petitioners in which the first respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if…
Judgment
C.C. NO.1111/07 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. III, THRISSUR. CRIME NO.537/2007 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. ....... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ----------------------
1. SHAH ALI, S/O.AKBAR ALI, POOVAMPARAMBIL, KURA, NELLIKKUNNU, THRISSUR.
2. AKBAR ALI, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, POOVAMPARAMBIL KURA, NELLIKKUNNU, THRISSUR.
3. KHADEEJABI, W/O.AKBAR ALI, POOVAMPARAMBIL KURA,NELLIKKUNNU, THRISSUR.
4. SHENILA, W/O.MOHAMMED SANIL, PUNILATH HOUSE, FLAT NO.13D, ORIENTAL GARDENS, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI.
5. SHYLA NAJEEB,W/O.MOHAMMED NAJEEB, PUNILATH HOUSE,MAVINCHUVAD, KALLOOR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM.
6. MOHAMMED NAJEEB,S/O.ALI HAJI, PUNILATH HOUSE, MAVINCHUVAD, KALLOOR P.O.,MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) CRL.M.C. NO.3830/2008 RESPONDENTS: DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------
NISHA, D/O. MOHAMMED SALIM, KARAPPAM HOUSE, VADOOKKARA, KOORKKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3830 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October 2008
O R D E R Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C. The first petitioner is the husband of the first respondent, the de facto complainant. All other petitioners are the relatives of the first petitioner. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The matter is pending before the learned J.F.C.M-III, Thrissur. At this juncture, the petitioners and the first respondent have come before this court duly represented by their counsel to apprise this court of the fact that the disputes between them have been settled and the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners has been compounded by the first respondent. The marital tie has been agreed to be dissolved and the first respondent has filed an affidavit to confirm such settlement/composition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor accept the said request and I am satisfied that Crl.M.C.No.3830/08 2 invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] the prosecution against the petitioners can now be quashed.
a) b) In the result, This Crl.M.C is allowed. C.C No.1111/2007 pending before the learned J.F.C.M-III, Thrissur against the petitioners in which the first respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) Crl.M.C.No.3830/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.3830/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 498A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 446, 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 22 Oct 2008. The bench was R BASANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.