IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 7534 of 2018

CC 98/2017 of J.M.F.C.,PERUMBAVOOR

CRIME NO. 3684/2016 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 ABDUL RABIN,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, RABINS COTTAGE,
THURAVOOR.P.O., CHERTHALA.

2 ABDUL RASHEED,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, RABINS COTTAGE,
THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA.

3 LAILA RASHEED,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O.ABDUL RASHEED, RABINS COTTAGE,
THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA.

BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
SMT.M.A.SULFIA
SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED
SRI.M.J.PAVU
SRI.P.J.SHIJO
SRI.VARUN V GOPAL

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Crl.MC.No. 7534 of 2018 2

PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

3 NASRIN MUSTHAFA
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.MUSTHAFA, KALAPOTHU HOUSE, MANJAPETTY,
MARAMBILLY.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.

BY ADV. SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA

SRI AMJAD ALI PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7534 of 2018 3

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (‘the Code” for brevity) with a prayer to quash the

proceedings pending against the petitioners.

2. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The

marriage between them was solemnized on 06.05.2013. The 2nd and

3rd petitioners are the in-laws of the 3 rd respondent. In the course of

their connubial relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 3 rd

respondent specifically alleges that the petitioners are guilty of

culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally led to the institution of

criminal proceedings at the instance of the 3rd respondent. FIR was

registered and after investigation, final report was laid before the

learned Magistrate and the case is now pending as C.C.No.98 of 2017

on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Perumbavoor. In

the aforesaid case, the petitioners are accused of having committed

offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the IPC.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
Crl.MC.No. 7534 of 2018 4

that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties

have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to live in

peace. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature. The

learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, invited the attention of this

Court to the affidavit filed by her and asserts that the disputes inter se

have been settled and the continuance of criminal proceedings will

only result in gross inconvenience and hardship. It is submitted that

the 3rd respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has

submitted that the statement of the 3rd respondent has been recorded

and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the settlement arrived at

is genuine.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced.

6. In Gian singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]

and in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] the

Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can

take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim

and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. Further

in Jitendra Raghuvanshi Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi
Crl.MC.No. 7534 of 2018 5

Another (2013) 4 SCC 58 it was observed that it is the duty of the

courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. If

the parties ponder over their faults and terminate their disputes

amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of

law, the courts should not hesitate to exercise its powers under

Section 482 of the Code. Permitting such proceedings to continue

would be nothing, but an abuse of process of court. The interest of

justice also require that the proceedings be quashed.

7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of

the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its

extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the

proceedings.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2

final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners now pending as C.C.No. 98/2017 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Perumbavoor are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 7534 of 2018 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.3684/2016
OF THE PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE IN CRIME
NO.3684/2016 OF THE PERUMBAVOOR POLICE
STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED 11.10.2018.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL