IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 67 of 2008() ----------------------- CC.810/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 1 TO 4 -------------------------------------------------- 1. MOIDEEN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O ISMAIL, RESIDING AT ODIPURAKODI, VORKADY, KUDAL MOGAR POST, MANJESWAR VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. ABDULLA, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT ODIPURAKODI, VARKADY, KUDAL MOGAR POST, MAJEWSWAR VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. BEEFATHUMMA, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT ODIPURAKODI, VORKADY, KUDAL MOGAR POST, MANJESWAR VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. USMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O ISMAIL, RESIDING AT ODIPURAKODI, VORKADY, KUDAL MOGAR POST, MANJESWAR VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH 2 RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. AYSHA, D/O ISMAIL, RESIDING AT BAITHUL AMAN, MAVINAKATTA, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE- REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.67 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 ORDER Petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.112 of 2005 of Manjeswaram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506(1) read with 34 IPC and which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod as C.C.No.810/2006, seek to quash the entire proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. 2. The main contention in support of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is that with regard to the same allegation, the de facto complainant had approached the Family Court, Kasaragod and in the common order dated 19.7.07, the Family Court had found the said case of the de facto complainant to be false. In the light of the findings of the Family court it would be abuse of the process of the criminal court to continue the prosecution proceedings in C.C.No.810 of 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision in Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004(1) SC 438). for the position that findings of the Civil Court are binding on the Crl.M.C.No. 67 of 2008 2 Criminal Court while the converse is not true. 3. The proposition that the findings of the civil court are binding on the criminal court is not res integra after the decision in 2002(8) SCC1987. A decision by a civil court does not bind the criminal court and vice versa although in a given case it may be relevant under Section 44 of the Evidence Act. It too early to hold that in the light of the findings of the civil court, the prosecution of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences cannot stand. The petitioners can press into service all the materials on which they rely on at the appropriate stage of the criminal prosecution. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this Cr.M.C is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj