IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6868 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.209/2018 ON THE FILES OF
C.J.M., KASARAGOD
CRIME NO. 343/2015 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:
1 ABDUL RASHEED M., AGED 35 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT A.K QUARTERS,
CHATTUMKUZHI, R D NAGAR P O, KUDLU VILLAGE,
KASARGOD TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
2 B.MUHAMMED, AGED 71 YEARS,
S/O BEERAN, RESIDING AT A.K QUARTERS,
CHATTUMKUZHI, R D NAGAR P O, KUDLU VILLAGE,
KASARGOD TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
3 JAMEELA, AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT A.K QUARTERS,
CHATTUMKUZHI, R D NAGAR P O, KUDLU VILLAGE,
KASARGOD TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
4 ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT CHOORI, R.D.NAGAR P.O.,
KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
5 FATHIMATH SHAHINA, AGED 29 YEARS,
W/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT CHOORI,
R.D.NAGAR P.O., KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SRI.C.R.SARADANAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
Crl.MC:6868/18 2
2 SUBANA C. P., AGED 24 YEARS,
D/O. ALI C.P., RESIDING AT K.K.PURAM, CHERKKALA,
CHENGALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. K ABDUL NASIR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C. K. PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC:6868/18 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 de facto complainant, who is arrayed as the 2 nd
respondent, is the wife of the 1st petitioner herein. The petitioners 2
and 3 are his parents, the 4th petitioner is his elder brother and the
5th petitioner is the wife of the 4th petitioner.
3. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd
respondent was solemnized on 23.09.2010. In the course of their
connubial relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 2 nd
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 2 nd respondent.
Annexure-A1 FIR was registered and after investigation, final report
was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is now pending
as C.C.No.209 of 2018 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s
Court, Kasaragod. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners are accused
of having committed offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
Crl.MC:6868/18 4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family members,
the parties have decided to put an end to their discord they are
living together. In that view of the matter, the continuance of
criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd 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 2 nd respondent
has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has
submitted that the statement of the 2nd respondent has been
recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the
settlement arrived at is genuine.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced.
8. 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
Crl.MC:6868/18 5
Raghuvanshi 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.
9. The dispute is clearly private and continuance of
proceedings will only inure to cause inconvenience and hardship to
the parties. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am
of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in
invoking its extraordinary 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 proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners
now pending as C.C.No.209 of 2018 on the files of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate’s Court, Kasaragod are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
KRJ
Crl.MC:6868/18 6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN
CRIME NO.343/2015 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY FO THE FINAL
REPORT IN CRIME NO.343/2015 OF VIDYANAGAR
POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.9.2018 SWORN IN BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
