IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8467 of 2018
CC 301/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, MAVELIKKARA
CRIME NO. 284/2016 OF Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha
BAJU, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.BALAN PILLAI, BAJU BHAVAN, KOLLAKADAVU P.O.,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 SONIA, AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O.RAJAN NAIR, NOW RESIDING AT KOPPARAYIL HOUSE,
VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH
R1 SRI T R RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8467 of 2018 2
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.301 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-
I, Mavelikkara. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 2 nd
respondent and he is proceeded against for having committed offences
punishable under Sections 451, 294(b), 323, 341 and 498A 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 petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He
submits that the statement of the 2nd 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. 8467 of 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.
7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of
the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its
extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A
final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner
Crl.MC.No. 8467 of 2018 4
now pending as C.C.No.301 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class-I, Mavelikkara are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
Crl.MC.No. 8467 of 2018 5
ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CC.NO.301/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,
ANNEXURE B ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 7.12.2018
SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.