SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abdul Rasheed M. vs The State Of Kerala on 16 November, 2018

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh