IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 984 of 2019
CC 100/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYANNUR
CRIME NO. 1319/2016 OF PARIYARAM POLICE STATION, Kannur
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:
1 AJITH K.,
S/O. BALAN K, AGED 41 YEARS,
2 RAJAN K.,
AGED 40 YEARS,
AGED 52 YEARS,
AGED 23 YEARS,
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT MOOLAKKAL HOUSE,
KACHERY PARAMBA, P.O. MUNDERI, KANNUR-670 591.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 PREETHI BHASKARAN,
D/O. BHASKARAN K.V., AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT
PRATHEEKSHA, MADATHILE VAYAL, CHERUTHAZHAM, P.O.
MANDUR, KANNUR-670 501.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
R1 BY ADV.R.SREEHARI
R2 BY SRI. B. JAYASURYA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 984 of 2019 2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 1st respondent is the de facto complainant in
C.C.No.100 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Payyannur. The 1st petitioner herein is her husband and the
petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. They are being proceeded
against for having committed offence punishable under Section
498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 1st
respondent has filed an affidavit, wherein she has stated that she
does not wish to continue with the prosecution proceedings
against the petitioners.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions.
He submits that the statement of the 1 st respondent has been
recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the
proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 984 of 2019 3
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 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. 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.
Crl.MC.No. 984 of 2019 4
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.100 of 2018 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur are
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 984 of 2019 5
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME 1319/2016 OF PARIYARAM
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
1319/2016 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3 JUDGMENT DATED 01.10.2018 IN O.P. 276/2018
ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR.
ANNEXURE A4 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED