SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepu vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 8782 of 2018

IN CC NO.1084/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-II(FOREST OFFENCES), PUNALUR

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 12:

1 DEEPU, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, DEEPU BHAVAN,
MELILA P.O., MELILA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2 USHAKUMARI, AGED 61 YEARS,
W/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, DEEPU BHAVAN, MELILA P.O.,
MELILA VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2 ARATHY, AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O.UTHAMAN PILLAIAYAKUMAR, UTHRAM NIVAS,
AVANEESWARAM R.S.(P.O.), MANJAKKALA MURI,
THALAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 508.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP

R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AMJAD ALI

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8782 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 C.C.No.

1084 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II,

Punalur. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant

and 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.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

refer to Annexure-B agreement dated 07.03.2018 filed before the

Family Court, Kottarakara in O.P No.604/2015 and submitted that the

disputes between the husband and the wife have been settled through

mediation and they are living together. The 2nd respondent has sworn

to Annexure-C affidavit, wherein it is stated that she does not wish to

continue with the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners.
Crl.MC.No. 8782 of 2018

3

5. 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.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have

perused the materials on record.

7. 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.
Crl.MC.No. 8782 of 2018

4

8. 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

complaint and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.1084 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-II, Punalur are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE

avs //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 8782 of 2018

5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC

NO.1084/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PUNALUR.

ANNEXURE B: AFFIDAVIT OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 07.03.2018
IN O.P.604/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KOTTARAKARA.

ANNEXURE C: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation