RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 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.1421/2008 pending before the learned J.F.C.M -II, Kottarakkara in which the petitioner is the accused and the second respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under…
Judgment
Crl.MC.No. 4246 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.1421/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, SON OF JANARDHANAN PILLAI, PACHKATTIL, KATHIKALAYM, VELAMANOOR CHERRY, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION JAYALEKSHMI, D/O.RADHAMONY AMMA, JANATHA HOUSE, PARADAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKKARA ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4246 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November 2008
O R D E R The petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. He faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Trial has not started. At this stage, the petitioner and the second respondent have settled all their disputes. The marital tie has been dissolved. The second respondent has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. The petitioner is the sole accused.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where 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] can be profitably invoked to prematurely terminate the prosecution against the petitioners. Crl.M.C.No.4246/08 2
a) b) In the result, This Crl.M.C is allowed. C.C No.1421/2008 pending before the learned J.F.C.M -II, Kottarakkara in which the petitioner is the accused and the second 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 petitioner and his sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) Crl.M.C.No.4246/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4246/08 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 — s. 498A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 446, 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 07 Nov 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.