IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2381 of 2008()
1. SARADA LEELAMONY, THENGAZHIKATHU VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAMAN SIVADASAN, POYKAYIL VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.BIMAL K.NATH
For Respondent :SRI.B.PREMOD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2381 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section
498 A I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a private
complaint filed by the petitioner. The 1st respondent is the sole
accused. He is the husband of the petitioner. The trial court
found the 1st respondent guilty. He was convicted and sentenced.
He preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The verdict
of guilty, conviction and sentence were upheld. The 1st
respondent did not challenge the order. But the petitioner and
the 1st respondent settled their disputes and started harmonious
co-habitation. They having settled the matter, they thought that
no further steps need be taken. Law has slowly caught up. The
petitioner was arrested in execution of the sentence imposed on
him. He was sent to prison. The execution of the sentence was a
surprise and a bolt from blue for the spouses. After the 1st
respondent was taken to prison, the petitioner has rushed to this
Court with this petition praying that powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the verdict of guilty, conviction
Crl.M.C. No.2381 of 2008 2
and sentence imposed on the 1st respondent. It is submitted that
even during the pendency of the appeal spouses had settled their
disputes and they had started harmonious co-habitation. The 1st
respondent/accused had not instructed their counsel. But the
counsel had argued the matter. He had hence omitted to bring to
the notice of the appellate court the fact that the matter has been
settled. The appeal filed in 1996 was disposed of ultimately only
in 2003.
2. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition
requesting the Court to quash the sentence imposed on her
husband the 1st respondent. Technically it can certainly be stated
that the 1st respondent must prefer a revision petition along with
an application for condonation of delay and in such revision he
must raise the contention that the matter has been settled
between the parties. But the 1st respondent was in prison when
this petition was filed. I have therefore chosen to ignore
technicalities and I am satisfied that the law must come to the
rescue of the petitioner and the 1st respondent, spouses who have
harmoniously resumed co-habitation long back. I am justified in
invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the
principles accepted by the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshy v. State
Crl.M.C. No.2381 of 2008 3
of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386]. As per interim order dated
24.06.08, this Court had directed that the 1st respondent/accused
in custody must be released forthwith. It is submitted that he has
already been released also.
3. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
ii) The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed
on the 1st respondent/accused as per judgment dated 20.09.96 in
C.C.No.7 of 1993 of the Munsiff Magistrate, Paravoor and upheld
by the appellate court (Ist Additional Sessions Court, Koallam) as
per judgment dated 29.07.03 in Crl.Appeal No.107 of 1996 is
hereby quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-