Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.PARVATHI AMMA versus THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.PARVATHI AMMA v. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE - Crl MC No. 1736 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9073 (30 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1736 of 2007()

1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.PARVATHI AMMA,
... Petitioner

2. LATHIKA P.S.,W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR,

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :30/05/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1736 of 2007

Dated this the 30th day of May 2007

O R D E R

The petitioners are spouses and they are the accused and defacto complainant respectively in a prosecution interalia under Section 498A I.P.C. They have come together before this court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner may be quashed. The spouses having settled their disputes and having resumed harmonious co-habitation. The same counsel appears for both of them. He has produced before the court an authorised affidavit as Annexure C which confirms the settlement of the dispute between the parties and the resumption of co-habitation by them. I am satisfied from the averments in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and from the submissions made at the bar and in the light of Annexure C that the parties have settled their disputes thoroughly and amicably and they have resumed co-habitation. If legally permissible, I am satisfied that the submissions about the settlement can be accepted and the case against the petitioner brought to premature termination. Crl.M.C.No.1736/07 2

2. But the offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. But the counsel rightly relies on the decision in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386]. That decision is authority for the proposition that the interests of justice may, at times, transcend the interests of mere law and in such circumstances the stipulations of Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot fetter the sweep, width and amplitude of the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the proceedings against the first petitioner initiated by the second petitioner can now be brought to premature termination.

3. In the result, this petition is allowed. Crime No.52/07 of Pandikkad police station is hereby quashed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr Crl.M.C.No.1736/07 3 Crl.M.C.No.1736/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007


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.