IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8767 of 2018
CC 968/2015 of J.M.F.C.-V,KOZHIKODE
CRIME NO. 32/2015 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE
ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.SAIDALIKUTTY, KOZHISSERYPARAMBIL HOUSE,
EDAYAPURAM ROAD, ASHOKA ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
FEROKE POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT – 676 631.
3 THASNI E.
D/O.ABOOBAKCER, AGED 40,
RESIDING AT MANDANIYIL HOUSE,
KALLIKOODAM, FEROKE POST,
KOZHIKODE – 676 631.
BY ADV. SMT.THUSHARA PAILY
SR.PP SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8767 of 2018 2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.
No.968 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V,
Kozhikode. The petitioner is the husband of the 3 rd respondent and he
is being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 406, 506(i) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The instant petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 3rd
respondent has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit stating that she does not
wish to continue with the prosecution proceedings against the
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He
submitted that the statement of the 3 rd respondent has been recorded
and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it
involves no public interest.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
Crl.MC.No. 8767 of 2018 3
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
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
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1
charge sheet and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the
Crl.MC.No. 8767 of 2018 4
petitioner now pending as C.C.No.968 of 2015 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
Crl.MC.No. 8767 of 2018 5
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.32 OF
2015 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE