IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8082 of 2018
IN CC NO.2588/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERY
CRIME NO. 387/2015 OF Fort Kochi Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANEESH, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.SHAMSU, ABDULLA MANZIL, THURUTHI,
KOCHI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KOCHI – 1.
BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL PRASAD
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM – 682 031.
2 ANSIYA, AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O.ANAZ, C.C.IV/247, THOPPIL VEETIL,
PUTHUVASSERY PARAMBU, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI – 2.
BY ADV. SRI.P.H.FAIZAL
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. AMJAD ALI SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC:8082/2018 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.
No.2588 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Mattancherry. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 2 nd
respondent and he is being proceeded against for having committed
offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The instant 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 petitioner.
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.
Crl.MC:8082/2018 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. 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-A1 final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner
Crl.MC:8082/2018 4
now pending as C.C. No.2588 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Mattancherry are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
krj
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC:8082/2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
8/6/2015 IN CRIME NO.387/2015 OF FORT KOCHI
POLICE STATION PRESENTLY PENDING AS
C.C.NO.2588/2015 ON THE FILES OF COURT OF
THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
MATTANCHERRY.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 22/11/2018 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
BETWEEN HERSELF AND THE PETITIONER.
