SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Against Cc 1206/2013 Of … vs R.Rajesh on 5 February, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/1ST PHALGUNA, 1938

Crl.MC.No. 1066 of 2017 ()
—————————

AGAINST CC 1206/2013 of J.M.F.C.-II,ATTINGAL

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:-:
——————————

1. R.RAJESH,
S/O.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,
AGED 41 YEARS, KAVITHA, KIZHAKKANELA,
NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,
S/O.LATE NARAYANA PILLAI,
AGED 66 YEARS, KAVITHA, KIZHAKKANELA,
NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. RADHAMANI AMMA,
D/O.LEKSHMIKUTTI AMMA,
AGED 63 YEARS, KAVITHA, KIZHAKKANELA,
NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

RESPONDENT(S):
—————–

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PALLICKAL POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.

2. SMT.RAMYA KRISHNA,
D/O.SREEKALA, AGED 28 YEARS,
UDAYAM VEEDU, KANJIRATHINKAL,
MEEYYANNOOR P.O., PALLIMON VILLAGE,
KOLLAM – 691 537.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.SANIL KUMAR
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 1066 of 2017 ()
—————————

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES
———————–

ANNEXURE A1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.381/2013
OF PALLICKAL POLICE STATION IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-II, ATTINGAL IN C.C.NO:1206/2013.

ANNEXURE A2. THE TRUE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
05.02.2017.

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: NIL
———————–

TRUE COPY

P..A TO JUDGE.

kp

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Crl.M.C. No. 1066 of 2017
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated 20th February, 2017
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

ORDER

1.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.On the basis of an information furnished by the 2nd

respondent, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner, Crime

No.381 of 2013 of the Pallickal Police Station was

registered and investigation was taken up for offences

punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of

the IPC, and on its completion final report was laid before

the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Attingal, where

the same is pending as C.C.No.1206 of 2013. The

petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as

well as the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the Crime

Crl.M.C. No.1066 of 2017 -2-

was registered due to temperamental differences and

minor skirmishes which usually occur between husband

and wife in the course of their matrimonial relationship.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the parties,

all the disputes have been settled and the spouses have

started living together. An affidavit sworn to by the victim

is also relied on by the parties to contend that the 2nd

respondent is desirous of bringing to an end the criminal

prosecution initiated against her husband and in-laws.

4.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions

has submitted that the statement of the party

respondent has been recorded and she has stated in

unequivocal terms that the settlement arrived at is

genuine.

5.I have considered the submissions.

6.It is evident from the materials produced that the parties

have amicably resolved their disputes and have decided to

live together as husband and wife under the same roof.

Crl.M.C. No.1066 of 2017 -3-

The continuance of the criminal proceedings will only

serve the purpose of causing hardship to the parties.

7.It is by now settled 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, there is no reason why this Court

should 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 dispute is

clearly private and no public interest is involved.

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

A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against

the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1206 of 2013 on the

file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class-II, Attingal are

quashed. Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,
JUDGE
kp/20.02.17

Leave a Reply

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

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