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. 691 of 2019
CC 850/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, HOSDRUG
CRIME NO. 1086/2017 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod
1 BIJU.V.P., AGED 31 YEARS,
PEROL VILLAGE, NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK.
2 SUMATHI, AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O. KUMARAN V., VATTAPOYIL, PEROL VILLAGE,
NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.
2 NISHITHA.M, AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O. NARAYANAN, R/AT MOOLAKANDAM, P.O.
ANANDASRAMAM, AJANUR VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK-671 315.
R1 BY SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN T JOSE
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. 691 of 2019 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.850 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-I, Hosdurg. The 1st petitioner herein is her husband and the
2nd petitioner is his mother. 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 2nd respondent has been
recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the
proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 691 of 2019 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 extraordinary powers
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.
Crl.MC.No. 691 of 2019 4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed.
Annexure-AII final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto
against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.850 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. 691 of 2019 5
ANNEXURE AI A TRUE THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.1086 OF 2017
OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE AII A TRUE THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1086 OF
2017 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P.A. TO JUDGE