SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Asharuf vs Jameela on 12 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 5598 of 2018

CC 779/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI

CRIME NO. 618/2016 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 ASHARUF,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.BAVA K.V, KALATHILVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUDUR (P.O.)
VATTAMKULAM, PONNANI, MALAPURAM, KERALA
679578.

2 SAINUDHEEN,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. BAVA.K.V., KALATHILVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUDUR (P.O.)
VATTAMKULAM, PONNANI, MALAPURAM, KERALA
679578.

3 HAMSA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. BAVA.K.V.,KALTHILVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUDUR (P.O.,)
VATTAMKULAM, PONNANI, MALAPURAM, KERALA -679578.

4 MUNEERA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O. HAMSA KL.V., KALATHILVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUDUR
(P.O.), VATTAMKULAM , PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-
679578

5 PATHUNNI,
AGED 68 YEARS,
W/O. BAVA.K.V.,KALATHILVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUDUR (P.O.,)
VATTAMKULAM, PONNANI, MALAPURAM, KERALA
679578.

BY ADVS.
AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY
SRI.AUGUSTUS BINU
Crl.MC.No. 5598 of 2018 2

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT STATE:

1 JAMEELA,
AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O.MUHAMMADA KUTTY, MUCHIKOOTTIL HOUSE, AYANKALAM
P.O, THAVANOOR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM-679573.

2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR,
PONNANI POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.

R1 BY ADVS.
SRI.VISAKH ANTONY
R2 BY SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5598 of 2018 3

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 1st respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The

petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the near relatives of the 1 st petitioner. The

marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent was

solemnized on 25.04.2010. In the course of their connubial

relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 1 st respondent

specifically alleged that the petitioners are guilty of culpable

matrimonial cruelty. This finally led to the institution of criminal

proceedings at the instance of the 1 st respondent. FIR was registered

and after investigation, Annexure-A1 final report was laid before the

learned Magistrate and the case is now pending as C.C.No.779 of

2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani.

In the aforesaid case, the petitioners are accused of having

committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read

with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties
Crl.MC.No. 5598 of 2018 4

have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to live

in peace. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature. The

learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, invited the

attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by her and asserts that

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 1 st respondent has no objection in

allowing the prayer sought for.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions, has

submitted that the statement of the 1 st respondent has been recorded

and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the settlement arrived

at is genuine.

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
Crl.MC.No. 5598 of 2018 5

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.

8. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners now pending as C.C.No.779 of 2016 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Dsv/-

//True Copy// P.A.To Judge
Crl.MC.No. 5598 of 2018 6

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN

C.C.NO. 779/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE FILES
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1
PONNANI.

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