High CourtsSingle Bench

Haridasan Muthukote @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 March 2018 · Citation: (2018) 03 KL CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 498(A)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Misc Case No. 2339 Of 2017
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 · 393 words
1.

The petitioner stood arrayed as the 5th accused in C.C. No.571/1998 for offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of IPC. It was alleged by the de facto complainant that after her marriage, she was abused physically and mentally in connection with dowry. The petitioner did not participate in the trial. All other accused were acquitted by Annexure 2 judgment holding that no evidence was let in by the prosecution to prove the case. The case against the petitioner herein was split up and is now pending as C.C.No.22/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IV, Kozhikode. It was stated that the victim deposed that she has no complaint against the accused. There are indications that the matter was settled with the de facto complainant.

2.

The petitioner has approached this Court contending that in the light of Annexure 2 judgment acquitting the remaining accused, the substratum of the case is broken and no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. It was also contended that the matter has been settled between the parties, evidenced by the judgment itself.

3.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Annexure 2 was not subjected to any challenge and has become final. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is involved in any other case. Having considered these facts, I am inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.

4.

However, it is to be noted that the remaining accused faced the trial in the year 2001. The petitioner herein remained absent through out the proceedings resulting in splitting up of the case. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was abroad for a long period, he did not participate in the proceedings evidently resulting in the delay of the judicial proceedings.

5.

Having considered these, I am inclined to impose cost on the petitioner for causing the delay in the judicial proceedings. A sum of ₹1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) to be remitted with the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Committee, High Court of Kerala within 15 days from today will serve the interest of justice. Remit the cost and file proof before this Court, whereupon all further proceedings in C.C.No.22/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IV, Kozhikode will stand quashed.

Crl.M.C. stands allowed as above.