CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Anish. A vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 5 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 KL CK 0021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5251 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 357 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

This Crl.M.C. has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2015 on the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Nedumangadu. The petitioners who are accused in that case are alleged to have committed the offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent (defacto complainant) have thereafter, mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage and they have also obtained a decree of divorce as is evident from Annexure C. It is submitted that the entire disputes have been settled amicably between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the continuance of the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2015 will amount to an abuse of process of Court.

3.

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that a statement of the 3rd respondent has been recorded and it is stated that the 3rd respondent does not wish to continue the prosecution as against the petitioners, on account of the subsequent settlement and divorce obtained by mutual consent. The learned Public Prosecutor also points out that the dissolution of the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent was as early as in the year 2015.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 SC], I am of the view that it will be appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Of the CR.P.C. to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangadu. Since the learned Public Prosecutor reports that a statement has been recorded from the 3rd respondent, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent.

Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.44 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangadu will stand quashed.