Skip to content


Jayakrishnan Vs. Archana Manoj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantJayakrishnan
RespondentArchana Manoj
Excerpt:
.....--------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ------------------------------------- annexure1 copy of the fir dated117.13 in crime69313 of thekkum bhagam police station. annexure2 copy of the memorandum of agreement dated239.13. annexure3 copy fo the order dated171.14 in op(hma)1182/13 passed by the family court, chavara. annexure4 copy of the not pressed memo dated171.14. annexure5 copy of the judgment dated202.14 in op (hma) 1182/13 passed by the family court, chavara. annexure6 copy of the ia59813 in op(hma) 1182/13 before the family court, chavara dated410.13. annexure7 copy of the notice dated253.14 issued by the judicial first class magisrate court, sasthamcotta. respondent(s)' exhibits : --------------------------------------- annexure r1(a): copy of the wound.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE11H DAY OF JULY201420TH ASHADHA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2198 of 2014 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 693/2013 OF THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ----------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- 1. JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED34YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVANAM, PALACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, AGED67YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVANAM, PALACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

3. CHANDRIKAYAMMA, AGED60YEARS, D/O.BHARGAVI AMMA, VIJAYA BHAVANAM, PALACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT4 SUNIL, KEEPERIL VEEDU, AGED38YEARS, IVERKALA NADUVIL, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

5. RESMI, AGED32YEARS, W/O.SUNIL, KEEPRIL VEEDU, IVERKALA NADUVIL, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE : ----------------------------------------------------- 1. ARCHANA MANOJ D/O.SINDHU, REVATHY, ERAVICHIRA EAST, SOORANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, 690 522.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1107-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BP Crl.MC.No. 2198 of 2014 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE1 COPY OF THE FIR DATED117.13 IN CRIME69313 OF THEKKUM BHAGAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE2 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED239.13. ANNEXURE3 COPY FO THE ORDER

DATED171.14 IN OP(HMA)1182/13 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA. ANNEXURE4 COPY OF THE NOT PRESSED MEMO DATED171.14. ANNEXURE5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED202.14 IN OP (HMA) 1182/13 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA. ANNEXURE6 COPY OF THE IA59813 IN OP(HMA) 1182/13 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA DATED410.13. ANNEXURE7 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED253.14 ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : --------------------------------------- ANNEXURE R1(a): COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. RADHAKRISHNAN, C.H.C MUTHUKULAM DT226/2013. ANNEXURE R1(b): COPY OF THE PETITION FOR DIVORCE BEFORE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA IN O.P. (HMA) 62/14 DT171/2014. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 2198 of 2014 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.693/2013 of Thekkum Bhagam Police Station, which has been registered for the offences under sections 120B, 323, 354A, 420 and 498A IPC.

2. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 1st informant and petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents. The 4th petitioner is his brother and the 5th petitioner is the wife of the 4th petitioner. The first informant had filed O.P. 1182/2013 in the Family Court, Chavara for return of gold ornaments and money. The matter was referred for mediation and the dispute was settled at mediation. Annexure II is a copy of the memorandum of agreement. On the basis of the memorandum of agreement the O.P. Crl.M.C. No. 2198/2014 -2- was dismissed as not pressed by the learned Family Court Judge. She admitted that all her gold ornaments were returned to her. The memorandum of agreement shows that the 1st informant, who is the 1st respondent before this Court, agreed to give evidence in favour of the accused when the case came up for trial. She also agreed that a `refer charge' would be filed and the proceedings would be closed. This petition has been filed on the allegation that now the 1st respondent is not ready to comply with the conditions in the agreement. The prayer is to quash the proceedings in the criminal case.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. What the 1st respondent agreed in Annexure II agreement is that she would get a `refer charge report' filed in the criminal case. She further agreed that if the final Crl.M.C. No. 2198/2014 -3- report was filed and the matter came up for trial, she would give evidence in favour of the accused. The complaint of the petitioners is that now she is not ready to comply with the conditions in the agreement. On that ground the petitioners request that the proceedings in the criminal case may be quashed.

5. It is not within the powers of the 1st respondent to file a refer report in the criminal case. So, the agreement to that extent cannot be enforced. The second condition was that she would give evidence in favour of the petitioners in the criminal Court. In other words, she agreed to give false evidence in favour of the petitioners. Such an agreement is invalid and it cannot be enforced. Moreover, final report has not been so far filed. Now the request of the petitioners is to quash the proceedings in the criminal case which would Crl.M.C. No. 2198/2014 -4- amount to enforcing the conditions in the memorandum of agreement which, as I have already noted, are invalid. The grounds urged in the petition are not sufficient to allow it. In the result, this Criminal M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE jjj


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //