IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 1672 of 2019
CC 815/2011 (L.P.No.82/2018) of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-II, KOLLAM
CRIME NO. 638/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIJU
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVAN, SREEVILASAM, KANNIMEL,
KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN – 682 031
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
3 VEENA
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. VIJAYAN, KAIRALI, VALIYAVILA NAGAR,
162, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT
SRI AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1672 of 2019 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.
No.815 of 2011 now pending as L.P.No.82 of 2018 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam. The petitioner herein is the
husband of the 3rd respondent and he is 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 3rd respondent has
filed Annexure-A3 affidavit, wherein it is 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 3rd respondent has been recorded
and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it
involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 1672 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.
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.
Crl.MC.No. 1672 of 2019 4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2
final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner
in C.C.No.815 of 2011 now pending as L.P.No.82 of 2018 on the file of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 1672 of 2019 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 638/2011
DATED 12.06.2011
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
12.06.2011
ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
15.08.2018
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL
