IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 514 of 2019
CC 900/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, HOSDRUG
CRIME NO. 387/2018 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod
BASHEER, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, ITTAMEL HOUSE,
NEAR IQBAL SCHOOL,
NOW RESIDING AT THE QUARTERS OF ABDUL MAJEED,
S/O.SULAIMAN HAJI BS HOUSE, KOLLAVAYAL AJANOOR
VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE,
(CRIME NO.387/18) HOSDURG POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 HASEENA.M.K, AGED 21 YEARS,
D/O. ABDUL JABAR,
KAMBAR APARTMENT, ILLYAS NAGAR,
PALLIKERA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 123.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MANOJ KUMAR
R1 BY SRI. B. JAYASURYA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 514 of 2019 2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in
C.C.No.900 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-I, Hosdurg. 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 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 sworn to an affidavit, wherein she has stated 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.No. 514 of 2019 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-I final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto
Crl.MC.No. 514 of 2019 4
against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.900 of 2018 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg are
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 514 of 2019 5
ANNEXURE I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.900/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JFCM-I
ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R1 THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT IN ANNEXURE-I.