High Court Kerala High Court

Moideen vs Aysha on 7 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Moideen vs Aysha on 7 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 67 of 2008()


1. MOIDEEN, AGED 39 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ABDULLA, AGED 50 YEARS,
3. BEEFATHUMMA, AGED 40 YEARS,
4. USMAN, AGED 40 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. AYSHA, D/O ISMAIL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE- REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :07/01/2008

 O R D E R
                               V. RAMKUMAR, J.

                        = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                            Crl.M.C.No.67 of 2008

                      = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008


                                        ORDER

Petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.112 of 2005

of Manjeswaram Police Station for offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 506(1) read with 34 IPC and which is

pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod

as C.C.No.810/2006, seek to quash the entire proceedings before

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod.

2. The main contention in support of this petition filed

under Section 482 Cr.P.C is that with regard to the same

allegation, the de facto complainant had approached the Family

Court, Kasaragod and in the common order dated 19.7.07, the

Family Court had found the said case of the de facto complainant

to be false. In the light of the findings of the Family court it

would be abuse of the process of the criminal court to continue

the prosecution proceedings in C.C.No.810 of 2006. The learned

counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision in Shanti

Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004(1) SC 438). for the

position that findings of the Civil Court are binding on the

Crl.M.C.No. 67 of 2008

2

Criminal Court while the converse is not true.

3. The proposition that the findings of the civil court are

binding on the criminal court is not res integra after the decision

in 2002(8) SCC1987. A decision by a civil court does not bind

the criminal court and vice versa although in a given case it may

be relevant under Section 44 of the Evidence Act. It too early to

hold that in the light of the findings of the civil court, the

prosecution of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences cannot

stand. The petitioners can press into service all the materials on

which they rely on at the appropriate stage of the criminal

prosecution. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this Cr.M.C is

disposed of.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

sj