High Court Kerala High Court

Rajesh T.R. vs State Of Kerala (The Sub Inspector … on 1 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rajesh T.R. vs State Of Kerala (The Sub Inspector … on 1 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 325 of 2010()


1. RAJESH T.R.S/O.RADAKRISHNAN, AGED 32
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR T.V., S/O.VELAYUDHAN
3. SHYAMALA M.C.W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.T.V.
4. DHANYA SUJAY, W/O.SUJAY MENON, AGED 27

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA (THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
                       ...       Respondent

2. SMT.SANGEETHA JYOTHI, W/O.T.R.RAJESH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.PREMCHAND

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :01/02/2010

 O R D E R
                           P.BHAVADASAN, J.
                           ---------------------------
                       Crl.M.C No.325 OF 2010
                        --------------------------------
             Dated this the 1st day of February 2010
              -----------------------------------------------------

                                   ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C

seeking to have Annexure A II charge Sheet and all further

proceedings in C.C No.1285/2009 pending before the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court – I, Ernakulam quashed.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.832/2009 of

Ernakulam Town North Police Station for having offences

punishable under Sections 498(A), 120(B) and 34 IPC. After

investigation, final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by the

court as per C.C No.1285/2009. It is unnecessary to go into the

details of the case for a simple reason that this petition can be

disposed of in a very short term.

3. It is pointed out that the parties have settled the

dispute between them. They therefore pray that a queitus may

be given to the matter.

4. It is true that the offences are under Sections 498

(A), 120(B) and 34 of IPC are not compoundable but one should

notice that since the disputes are settled by parties and there is

Crl.M.C No.325 OF 2010 Page numbers

no public policy involved, the reliefs can be moulded. In the light

of the decision reported in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19 Sessions Court ) and Manoj

Sharma v State (2008(4) KLT 417) there is no reason as to

why the prayers should not be accepted.

5. In the result the petition is allowed and all further

proceedings in C.C No.1285/2009 pending before the Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court – I, Ernakulam shall stand quashed.

Sd/-

P.BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv