Shamsudheen, vs Bushara,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 30, 2020

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1752098

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1752098
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar
Decided On: Jun 30, 2020
Case Number: Crl.MC/1802/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shamsudheen,

Respondent

Bushara,

Excerpt

.....is a proceedings under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing annexure-a1 charge sheet pending trial before the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, perinthalmanna in c.c.no.635 of 2018.2. the petitioner is the accused in the said case. the case was one registered under section 498(a) read with section 34 of the indian penal code.3. it is seen that the petitioner and the de facto complainant of the crime have amicably settled the disputes. an affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant is part of the records.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned public prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.5. it is seen that the dispute arose on account ofthe matrimonial discord between the de facto complainant and her husband, the accused. though the matter is settled between the parties, i have examined the accusation in the case and found that this is a matter that could be settled and closed in the light of the decisions of the apex court in jitendra raghuvanshi v. babita raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 scc 58 and gian singh v. state of punjab, (2012) 10 scc 303, invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure. in the result, the crl.m.c. is allowed and annexure-a1 charge sheet pending trial before the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, perinthalmanna in c.c.no.635 of 2018 and all further proceedings thereto are quashed.sd/- p.b.suresh kumar, judge rkjappendix petitioner's/s exhibits: annexure a1 true copy of charge sheet dated in cc no.635/2018 pending before hon'ble jfcm-ii court, perinthalmanna, malappuram (district). annexure a2 notarized agreement between 1st respondent and father of the petitioner. annexure a3 affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the notary public dated

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.1802 OF 2020(E) CC 635/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO.161/2012 OF Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram PETITIONER : SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALAVI, MOKKACHARITHODI HOUSE, MOORKKANAD (P.O.) VENGAD, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAIN RESPONDENTS : 1 BUSHARA, AGED 38, D/O. THORAPARAMBIL, MUHAMMED HAJI, THORAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOZHAVANUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM (DT.), KERALA, PIN-676101. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHOOR POLICE STATION, R1 BY ADV. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI.G. OTHER PRESENT: BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -----------------------------------------------

ORDER

This is a proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure-A1 Charge Sheet pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna in C.C.No.635 of 2018.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the said case. The case was one registered under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is seen that the petitioner and the de facto complainant of the crime have amicably settled the disputes. An affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant is part of the records.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.

5. It is seen that the dispute arose on account of

the matrimonial discord between the de facto complainant and her husband, the accused. Though the matter is settled between the parties, I have examined the accusation in the case and found that this is a matter that could be settled and closed in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58 and Gian singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A1 Charge Sheet pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna in C.C.No.635 of 2018 and all further proceedings thereto are quashed.

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE rkj

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DATED IN CC NO.635/2018 PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE JFCM-II COURT, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM (DISTRICT). ANNEXURE A2 NOTARIZED AGREEMENT BETWEEN 1ST RESPONDENT AND FATHER OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2020 Same Parties Shamsudheen, vs Bushara, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar