SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abin Joy vs The State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2018

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. 7282 of 2018

CC 1541/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANJERI

CRIME NO. 263/2016 OF KALIKAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 ABIN JOY,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.JOY,
RATHAPALLY HOUSE, ARIMANAL, KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.

2 MOLLY JOY,
W/O.JOY, RATHAPALLY HOUSE, ARIMANAL, KALIKAVU,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031- FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, KALIKAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2 LINI .T,
D/O GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 33 YEARS, THANIKKAL HOUSE,
VAZHAKULAM, VENGACHUVADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 686
670.

R2 BY ADV. NIDHIN KUMAR A.P

R1 SRI AMJAD ALI, SERNIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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. 7282 of 2018 2

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 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd

petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between

the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on

31.10.2008. In the course of their connubial relationship, serious

disputes cropped up. The 2nd respondent specifically alleged 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. FIR was registered and after investigation, Annexure-A

final report was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is

now pending as C.C.No.1541 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri. In the aforesaid case, the

petitioners are accused of having committed offences punishable

under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties
Crl.MC.No. 7282 of 2018 3

have decided to put an end to their discord. It is urged that the

dispute is purely private in nature. 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.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions, has

submitted that the statement of the 2 nd 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 Another [(2013) 4 SCC 58], it was observed that it
Crl.MC.No. 7282 of 2018 4

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

proceedings.

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

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1541 of 2016 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 7282 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME

NO.263/2016 OF THE KALIKAVU POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/01/2018.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation