Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRASEETHA, D/O.CHANDUKUTTY versus JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.SREEDHARAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRASEETHA, D/O.CHANDUKUTTY v. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.SREEDHARAN - Crl MC No. 2925 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 17634 (20 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2925 of 2007()

1. PRASEETHA, D/O.CHANDUKUTTY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.SREEDHARAN,
... Respondent

2. JANAKI, W/O.SREEDHARAN,

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :20/09/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2925 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 20th day of September, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 498A I.P.C. The accused in that prosecution are respondents 1 and 2 herein, her husband and her mother-in-law. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police. The crime, in turn, was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, which the learned Magistrate was pleased to refer to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The case has been registered as C.C. 288 of 2007. The proceedings are pending before the learned J.F.C.M. -II, Perambra.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now settled all her disputes with respondents 1 and 2. The marital tie has been dissolved by an order of the court. All monetary and other disputes have been settled. Continuance of the prosecution is hence unnecessary. It pollutes the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. Crl.M.C.No. 2925 of 2007 2

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vouches that the petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 288 of 2007 i.e. Crime 43 of 2007 and that the petitioner has settled all her disputes with the respondents amicably. The learned P.P. raised no objection.

4. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to bring about premature termination of this prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. The dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) lays down that such invocation is possible notwithstanding the fact that Section 498A I.P.C. is not a compoundable offence under S.320 Cr.P.C.

5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. C.C. 288 of 2007 pending before the J.F.C.M.-II, Perambra against respondents 1 and 2 is hereby quashed.

6. Hand over copy of the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.