SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Antony Kottakkal vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 8440 of 2018

CC 999/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NORTH PARAVUR

CRIME NO. 1777/2015 OF North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 ANTONY KOTTAKKAL,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.VARGHESE, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTUVALLY,
THATHAPPILLY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683
520.

2 BENNY KOTTAKKAL @ XAVIER,
AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O.VARGHESE, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, THATHAPPILLY,
KOTTUVALLY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 520.

3 LEENA,
AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O.SEBASTIAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, THATHAPPILLY,
KOTTUVALLY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 518.

4 SINI,
AGED 46 YEARS,
W/O.BENNY, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, THATHAPPILLY, KOTTUVALLY,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 520.

5 JOB @ VARGHESE,
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O.VARGHESE, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, THATHAPPILLY,
KOTTUVALLY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 542.

6 SHINI,
AGED 47 YEARS,
W/O.JOB, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, THATHAPPILLY, KOTTUVALLY,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 542.

BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJI MATHEW
SMT.NEETHU REGHUKUMAR
SRI.DENU JOSEPH
Crl.MC.No. 8440 of 2018 2

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/PROSECUTRIX:

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

2 PRINCY,
AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.FRANCIS, THANNIKKAPPILLY HOUSE,
CHIRAYAM, ALANGAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 511.

R1 BY SRI. AMJAD ALI, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8440 of 2018 3

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.999 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

North Paravur. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent

and the rest of the petitioners 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 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.

Crl.MC.No. 8440 of 2018 4

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.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the
Crl.MC.No. 8440 of 2018 5

petitioners now pending as C.C.No.999 of 2016 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, North Paravur are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

DSV/27.2.19
Crl.MC.No. 8440 of 2018 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FI STATEMENT

IN CRIME NO.1777 OF 2015 OF NORTH PARAVUR
POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
SUBMITTED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT NORTH PARAVUR IN CRIME
NO.1777 OF 2015 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE
STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
WITHDRAW ANNEXURE A1 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO DATED 30/11/2018.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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