IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 954 of 2019
IN CC NO.75/2018 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PONNANI
CRIME NO. 366/2017 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 AKBAR, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O ABOOBACKER, PUZHAKKALATH HOUSE,
POTHANNOOR, EDAPPAL,
MALAPPURAM PIN – 679 576.
2 ABOOBACKER, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O. IBRAHIM, PUZHAKKALATH HOUSE,
POTHANNOOR, EDAPPAL,
MALAPPURAM PIN – 679 576.
3 NAZEERA, AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O. ABOOBACKER, PUZHAKKALATH HOUSE,
POTHANNOOR, EDAPPAL,
MALAPPURAM PIN – 679 576.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 ANSHADA, AGED 26 YEARS,
W/O. AKBAR, PUZHAKKALATH HOUSE,
POTHANNOOR, EDAPPAL,
MALAPPURAM PIN – 679 576.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE
BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 954 of 2019
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.
75 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnani.
The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and petitioners
2 and 3 are his near relatives. They are being proceeded against for
having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324,
498A, 406, 506(1), 308 354 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 2nd respondent has
filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish to continue with the
prosecution proceedings against the petitioners.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He
submitted that the statement of the 2 nd 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 and have
perused the materials on record.
Crl.MC.No. 954 of 2019
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
proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final
Crl.MC.No. 954 of 2019
4
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners
now pending as C.C.No.75 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Ponnani are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
avs //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 954 of 2019
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO
THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT
PONNANI IN C.C NO.75 OF 2018.
ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT.
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
