IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7934 of 2018
CRIME NO.1810/2016 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, Thrissur
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 BIBIN N.B., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. BALAN,
NADUVILPURAKKAL HOUSE, MANITHARA DESOM,
AVANOOR P.O, THANGALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
2 BALAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE APPU,
NADUVILPURAKKAL HOUSE, MANITHARA DESOM,
AVANOOR P.O., THANGALOOR VILLAGE, THRISUSR TALUK.
3 SULOCHANA, AGED 57 YEARS,
W/O.BALAN, NADUVILPURAKKAL HOUSE,
MANITHARA DESOM, AVANOOR P.O.,
THANGALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 NEETHU T.K., AGED 24 YEARS,
D/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE,
AMABALAPURAM DESOM, PERINGANDOOR VILLAGE,
THALAPPILLY TALUK-680596.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
R1 SRI.AMJAD ALI, SR.PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7934 of 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 Crime
No.1810 of 2016 registered at the Thrissur Medical College Police
Station. The petitioners herein are the husband and in-laws of the
2nd respondent and they are proceeded against for having committed
offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC
and Sections 43(a), (f) r/w. Sections 66, 66C of Information
Technology Act, 2000.
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 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. 7934 of 2018
3
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 extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the proceedings.
Crl.MC.No. 7934 of 2018
4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1
First Information Report in Crime No.1810 of 2016 of the Thrissur
Medical College Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto
against the petitioners are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 7934 of 2018
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.1810/2016 OF THRISSUR
MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION FOR
DIVORCE IN O.P.947/2018 ON THE FILES OF
FAMILY COURT, THIRSSUR.
ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
19.11.2018.
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
