Kerala High Court
Crl.MC/3813/2012 of MUHAMMED SAHIR SHA Vs STATE OF KERALA` on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 3813 of 2012 (B) -------------------------- CC.696/2011 of J.F.M.C.-I, KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 3813 of 2012 (B)
--------------------------
CC.696/2011 of J.F.M.C.-I, KANNUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:---------------------------------------------
1. MUHAMMED SAHIR SHA,, AGED 38 YEARS S/O ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT YUSRA MANZIL KALLIIASSERY AMSOM, MANGAD DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT
2. THAHIRA ABOOBACKER,, AGED 52 YEARS W/O ABOOBACKER, THAHI MANSION, KANNUKKARA P.O KANNUR DISTRICT
3. P.P. YUSRA,, AGED 28 YEARS W/O MUHAMMED SAHIR SHA, RESIDING AT YSRA MANZIL KALLIIASSERY AMSOM, MANGAD DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:--------------------------- STATE OF KERALA`, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3813 of 2012 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-1COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 410/11 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE
ANNEXURE-2COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET (FINAL REPORT) IN C.C NO 696/2011OF JFMC-I KANNUR
ANNEXURE3COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL
//True copy//P.A. TO JUDGE
Shg/
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Criminal M.C.No.3813/2012
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 31[st]day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
The criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner seeking toquash Annexure-2 charge sheet and all further proceedings inC.C.No.696/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,Kannur as against petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the case andthe third petitioner is the de facto complainant. The offences alleged areunder Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thesecond petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner and the third petitioneris the wife of the first petitioner. It is averred in the Crl.M.C that after theirmarriage on 02/01/2005, petitioners 1 and 3 resided together as husbandand wife in the house of the third respondent and a male child was born inthe wedlock. Due to difference of opinion, they were living separately. Thepresent proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint asC.M.P.No.4398/2011 and the court referred the matter for investigation tothe police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is,accordingly, the case was registered by the police.
3. Finally, the petitioners have stated in para.6 that the disputesbetween the parties have been settled and, now, the first and third petitioners are residing together and living a happy life. Accordingly, theyare seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.696/2011.
4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who submitted that onverification of the details, it is seen that the parties are residing together.
5. In the light of the principles stated by the Apex Court in theJudgments inGian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] andJoshi v. State of Haryana [2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)], I am satisfied that itis a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. The entire dispute arose between them because ofthe dispute between first and third petitioners after the marriage and nowthey have settled their life and are residing together. In the light of theabove, there is no meaning in proceeding with the criminal case also.Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Annexure-2 charge sheet in C.C.No.696/2011 on the file of JudicialFirst Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur eas against petitioners 1 and 2 willstand quashed. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.No costs. Sd/- ms (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)