Kerala High Court
Jason P.D vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2024
2024:KER:77202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6874 OF 2023
CRIME NO.2666/2017 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
IN C.C. NO.130 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JASON P.D
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O DEVASSEY, PULLAN HOUSE, PADUVAPURAM P.O., MARANGADAM,
KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY,
NOW RESIDING AT PULLAN HOUSE, WEST OF PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
NJARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505
BY ADVS.
K.B.HARSHAN
SOUMINI JAMES
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 TINU JOSE
D/O JOSE, PAYYAPPILLYKOLUVAN HOUSE, VATHAKAD, THURAVOOR
P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
BY ADVS.
P.ANTO THOMAS
JEEMON JOHN
SR PP - RENJIT GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:77202
Crl.M.C. No. 6874 of 2023
2
ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No.130/2018 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly
arose out of Crime No. 2666/2017 of Angamaly Police
Station, Ernakulam. The petitioner herein is accused in the
above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. In this matter, offences punishable under Sections
341, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC are alleged to be
committed by the accused, who is none other than the
husband of the defacto complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that, during the pendency of this criminal case,
without noticing the same, other litigations between the
2024:KER:77202
parties viz. M.C. No.378/2017, O.P. No.1778/2017 and O.P.
No.568/2018 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam
were settled as per Annexure.A2 compromise agreement.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since
pendency of C.C. No.130/2018 on the files of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly i.e. the present crime was
not noticed at the time of compromise, the same failed to be
incorporated in the compromise agreement. Further, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the
entire dispute has been settled between the parties.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for
quashment of this case also.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant also conceded Annexure.A2
compromise agreement and submitted that in terms of the
agreement, the amount mentioned therein was received and
the property was transferred. But, the learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would submit that
the certificates of the 2nd respondent are at the hands of the
petitioner and the same were not handed over. The learned
2024:KER:77202
counsel for the 2nd respondent further submitted that
maintenance to the son is kept in arrears by the petitioner.
6. Apart from the respective counsel, the parties also
appeared in person. They also reiterated the contentions
raised by their counsel. At this juncture, the learned counsel
for the petitioner pointed out Clause No.3 of Annexure.A2,
wherein it is stated that all the articles belonged to the 2 nd
respondent already returned to her by the petitioner and vise
versa.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor also did not oppose
quashment of the proceedings, since the dispute arose out of
the matrimonial discord between the parties already settled.
8. In a nutshell, Annexure.A2 compromise agreement
would suggest that, the matrimonial discord in between the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been settled, as
admitted by both parties. But the defacto complainant
alleges that her certificates, viz. SSLC Book, Degree
certificates etc. are at the hands of the petitioner. The
petitioner emphatically denied the same and reiterated
Clause No.3 in the agreement. In fact, this dispute cannot be
2024:KER:77202
addressed in this lis. Therefore, the defacto complainant can
seek remedies, if any, as per law and in such event also the
terms of the compromise shall bind to her and the petitioner.
Since the defacto complainant also conceded quashment of
this criminal proceedings in open Court, on recording the
same, continuance of this criminal proceedings is
unwarranted. Further, the amount due towards the
maintenance of the son, as on today, also paid by the
petitioner, in court and the said payment is recorded.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to allow this
petition.
In the result, this petition stands allowed. All
further proceedings in C.C. No.130/2018 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly arose out of
Crime No. 2666/2017 of Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam,
as against the petitioner/accused, stand quashed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
SK
2024:KER:77202
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN C.C. NO. 130/2018 IN
CR. NO. 2666/2017 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION
RECEIVED FROM JFCM COURT, ANGAMALY
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT DATED
06/05/2019
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/07/2021 IN
O.P. NO. 985/2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 63
OF THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 DATED
27/9/2024
