Shibu K.Mani vs Rendhu Sara Kurian on 8 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Shibu K.Mani vs Rendhu Sara Kurian on 8 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3027 of 2009()


1. SHIBU K.MANI, S/O.MANI (AGED 35),
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RENDHU SARA KURIAN, D/O.KURIAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKAL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :08/10/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
            CRL.M.C.No.3027       OF 2009
            ===========================

      Dated this the 8th day of October,2009

                        ORDER

Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.681/2005

on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Changanassery. Prosecution case is that three accused

persons committed an offence under section 498A and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As the

petitioner was absconding, case as against him was

split up and refiled as C.C.148/2008 and the remaining

accused were tried by the learned Magistrate. Though

the learned Magistrate found them guilty and convicted

and sentenced them for the offences under section 498A

and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in

Crl.A.149/2008 filed by those accused, under Annexure B

judgment Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam set aside

the conviction and acquitted them. This petition is

filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure

to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner

contending that in view of the order of acquittal of

the co-accused under Annexure B judgment and the

finding that there is no evidence to prove the

Crl.M.C.3027/2009 2

commission of an offence under section 498A or Section 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, continuation of

proceedings against him is only an unnecessary waste of

valuable time of the court and therefore it is to be

quashed. Petitioner also contended that he has already

obtained an order of divorce from the Family Court and in

such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to

continue the prosecution. Learned counsel also argued that

petitioner is employed in United States of America and it

is in such circumstances, he could not appear when the

other accused were tried and as there is no chance for a

successful prosecution, the case is to be quashed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. The fact that accused 2 and 3 were acquitted by the

appellate court, in the appeal is not a ground to quash the

proceedings as against the petitioner who is the husband of

the first respondent. The question whether ultimately when

the petitioner is tried, there would be evidence to convict

the petitioner cannot be decided at this stage and based on

the order of acquittal the case as against the petitioner

cannot be quashed. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the

contentions before the learned Magistrate and with that

liberty petition is dismissed.




                                       M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
                                                 JUDGE

Crl.M.C.3027/2009    3

tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.




     ---------------------
      W.P.(C).NO. /06
     ---------------------


         JUDGMENT




     SEPTEMBER,2006

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *