SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amal K.Wilfred vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 8TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 8549 of 2018

IN CC NO.529/2017 of TEMPORARY JUDL. FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL

CRIME NO.437/2016 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,2 3:

1 AMAL K.WILFRED, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.WILFRED, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE,
PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM.

2 ALAN K.WILFRED, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.WILFRED, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE,
PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM.

3 KUNJAMMA WILFRED, AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O.WILFRED, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE,
PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM.

BY ADVS.
BALU TOM CHERUVALLY
SRI.K.R.JITHIN

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 PRINCY, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.AMAL K.WILFRED,
KANAKKASSERY HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE, NJARAKKAL,
ERNAKULAM – 682 505.

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T. R. RENJITH PP.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC:8549/18 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

petitioners 2 and 3 are his near relatives. According to the

prosecution, the petitioners subjected the 2 nd respondent to ill-

treatment and harassment demanding dowry. At the instance of

the 2nd respondent, Crime was registered and after investigation,

final report was laid before the jurisdictional court incorporating

offence under Sections 406, 498A and 506 r/w. Section 34 of the

IPC. The case is now pending as C.C. No.529 of 2017 on the files

of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Njarakkal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family

members, the entire disputes have been settled. It is urged that

the dispute is purely private in nature.

4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent invited the

attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by her and asserts that
CRL.MC:8549/18 3

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.

5. 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.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have

perused the materials on record.

7. 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
CRL.MC:8549/18 4

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.

8. 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.529 of 2017 on the files of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Njarakkal are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
krj
CRL.MC:8549/18 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.529/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NJARAKKAL.

ANNEXURE B THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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