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
