Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THUSIKANNAN HASHIQUE, S/O. SAHEED versus KALLAPUTHIYAPURAYIL SAREENA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THUSIKANNAN HASHIQUE, S/O. SAHEED v. KALLAPUTHIYAPURAYIL SAREENA - Crl MC No. 3937 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 3615 (15 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3937 of 2006()

1. THUSIKANNAN HASHIQUE, S/O. SAHEED,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KALLAPUTHIYAPURAYIL SAREENA,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY

For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.SUMOD

For Respondent :SMT.N.SHAMNA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :15/12/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 3937 OF 2006

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1st accused in a prosecution under Sec.498A of the IPC. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent/wife. The complaint was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet under Secs.498A and 406 read with Sec.109 of the IPC against six accused persons including the petitioner herein. The petitioner, who was employed abroad, was not available for trial. Accused 2 to 6 faced trial before the learned Magistrate. They were found not guilty and acquitted. The case against the petitioner was split up. It is now pending as C.C.No.318/05.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have now settled their disputes. Divorce has been effected. Parties are residing separately. The respondent/complainant has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the CRL.M.C.NO. 3937 OF 2006 -: 2 :- petitioner.

3. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent make a joint request that the prosecution against the petitioner may be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent/wife has filed a statement/compromise petition duly counter signed by her counsel to confirm that the disputes have been settled and the offences compounded.

4. From the averments made in the petition, from the compromise statement filed by the respondent/wife and from the submissions made by the learned counsel at the Bar - the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/wife vouches for the signature of the 1st respondent in the application for composition, I am satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes and the composition has been made by the 1st respondent.

5. The offences alleged include non-compoundable offence. But as held in B.S. Joshy v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386), I am satisfied that, in the interests of harmony, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings CRL.M.C.NO. 3937 OF 2006 -: 3 :- against the petitioner.

6. In the result:

(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (2) C.C.No.318/05 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur, against the petitioner is quashed. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.