Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Anpuselvan Vs. State of Kerala

Anpuselvan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 23, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1158222

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anpuselvan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....code of criminal procedure with a prayer to quash annexure a1 petition, annexure a2 f.i.r and all proceedings in c.c no.994/2013 of judicial first class magistrate court- iii, thrissur, on the ground that the entire dispute is settled with the de facto complainant who is the 2nd respondent herein.2. heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as the learned public prosecutor. crl.m.c no.4126/2014 2 3. the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner herein married the 2nd respondent on 24.08.2011 in accordance with the rites prevailed among the hindu religion and thereafter the de facto complainant resided along with the first petitioner herein and during such stay difference of opinion occurred among the couple, which ultimately led to filing of annexure a1 complaint on the basis of which annexure a2 f.i.r was registered. now, the case of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent is that after initiating the criminal proceedings the entire dispute has been settled and the marriage between them dissolved through mutual consent and now they are residing separately and each of them do not want to proceed with the legal proceedings. the 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit on 14.07.2014 wherein it is stated the above referred facts and submitted that she has no objection in terminating the prosecution proceedings pending against the petitioner/accused. crl.m.c no.4126/2014 3 as the offence involved is under section 498a and incidental offences connected with family disputes, i am of the view that the dictum laid down by the supreme court in the decision gian singh vs. state of punjab (2012(4) klt108sc)) is squarely attracted and applicable. accordingly, following the above decision, it is just and proper to allow this petition. in the result, this crl.m.c is allowed quashing annexure a1 complaint, annexure a2 f.i.r and all further prosecution proceedings pending against the petitioner in c.c no.994/2013 of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE23D DAY OF JULY20141ST SRAVANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 4126 of 2014 --------------------------------- CC9942013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 454/2013 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION , TRISSUR --------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- ANPUSELVAN, AGED43YEARS, S/O.CHINNAPILLAI, RESIDING AT18C, INDIRA NAGAR, ATTUR, SALEM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEECHI POLICE STATION, PATTIKAD680652.

2. JISHA, AGED29YEARS, D/O.KARUNAKARA PANICKER, ALAKANAL PURAYIDAM, PAIKANDOM, PEECHI POST, PIN680653. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2307-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 4126 of 2014 --------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 PHOTO COPY OF PETITION MP NO14642013 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM C NO.III THRISSUR ANNEXURE A2 PHOTO COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO4542013 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 PHOTO COPY OF OP15902013 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -------------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ V.K.MOHANAN, J =========================== Crl.M.C No.4126 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C No.994/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Thrissur in which the offences alleged against him are under Sections 341, 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he preferred the above Crl.M.C under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 petition, Annexure A2 F.I.R and all proceedings in C.C No.994/2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- III, Thrissur, on the ground that the entire dispute is settled with the de facto complainant who is the 2nd respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C No.4126/2014 2 3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner herein married the 2nd respondent on 24.08.2011 in accordance with the rites prevailed among the Hindu religion and thereafter the de facto complainant resided along with the first petitioner herein and during such stay difference of opinion occurred among the couple, which ultimately led to filing of Annexure A1 complaint on the basis of which Annexure A2 F.I.R was registered. Now, the case of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent is that after initiating the criminal proceedings the entire dispute has been settled and the marriage between them dissolved through mutual consent and now they are residing separately and each of them do not want to proceed with the legal proceedings. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit on 14.07.2014 wherein it is stated the above referred facts and submitted that she has no objection in terminating the prosecution proceedings pending against the petitioner/accused. Crl.M.C No.4126/2014 3 As the offence involved is under Section 498A and incidental offences connected with family disputes, I am of the view that the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012(4) KLT108SC)) is squarely attracted and applicable. Accordingly, following the above decision, it is just and proper to allow this petition. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed quashing Annexure A1 complaint, Annexure A2 F.I.R and all further prosecution proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C No.994/2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thrissur. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial