IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 531 of 2018
CC 3986/2016 of J.M.F.C.,CHAVAKKAD
CRIME NO. 1645/2016 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIJU
S/O.BALAN, AGED 34 YEARS, VASANTHAM NAGAR,
DR. NO.24-1-38 A6, DASAMPALAYAM ROAD,
KATTOOR, METTUPPALAYAM, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PAVARATTY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DIST – 680001
3 BABY SINDHU
AGED 27 YEARS,D/O.VENU, PAVARATTY HOUSE,
KAKKASERI DESAM, ELAVALLI – 680 511.
BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND
PP. SRI. C.K. PRASAD.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 531 of 2018 2
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 petitioner.
2. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Their
marriage was solemnized on 05.05.2011. In the course of their
connubial relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 3rd respondent
specifically alleges that the petitioner is guilty of culpable matrimonial
cruelty. This finally led to the institution of criminal proceedings at the
instance of the 3rd respondent. FIR was registered and after
investigation, final report was laid before the learned Magistrate and
the case is now pending as C.C.No.3986 of 2016 on the files of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chavakkad. In the aforesaid case, the
petitioner is accused of having committed offence punishable under
Section 498A of the IPC.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties
have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to part
ways. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature. The
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, invited the attention
Crl.MC.No. 531 of 2018 3
of this Court to the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 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
Crl.MC.No. 531 of 2018 4
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.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A
final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner
now pending as C.C.No.3986 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP //True Copy// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 531 of 2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A FINAL REPORT IN CC 3986/2016 PENDING BEFORE
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
CHAVAKKAD
ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT OF THIRD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL
