SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Divya K. vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 7863 of 2018

CC NO.490/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE J.M.F.C., TALIPARAMBA

CRIME NO.577/2011 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

DIVYA K., AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O THANKARAJAN, AMBAPURAM HOUSE,
BARA P.O. KASARAGOD- 671319.

BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

RESPONDENTS/STATE ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

2 VINOD M., AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, MUNDAYATTA HOUSE,
PATTUVAM P.O. KANNUR-670 602.

3 KARTHYAYANI, AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, MUNDAYATTA HOUSE,
PATTUVAM P.O.KANNUR-670 602.

4 VIDYA, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, MUNDAYATTA HOUSE,
PATTUVAM P.O., KANNUR-670 602.

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T. R. RENJITH

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7863 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 respondents.

2. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in

C.C.No.490 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court, Taliparamba. The respondents 2 to 4 are the accused in the

said case and they stands indicted for having committed offence under

Section 498A of the IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the marriage between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent was

solemnized on 26.6.2010. The relationship became strained

immediately thereafter and on 17.8.2011, she approached the police

and gave information, based on which, Crime No.577 of 2011 was

registered. Final report was laid in the year 2012. Several proceedings

were initiated before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hosdurg and
Crl.MC.No. 7863 of 2018 3

before this Court. While so, at the instance of mediators, the entire

disputes have been settled and the parties have agreed to part ways.

As per the terms of the agreement, both sides have agreed to

withdraw all pending proceedings. The learned counsel refers to

Annexure-3 agreement signed by the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent

in the presence of witnesses. A sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was also handed

over to the petitioner by the 2 nd respondent towards full and final

settlement of her claims. It is submitted that in view of the settlement

arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing

the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4

submitted that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not

affect public peace or tranquility.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has

submitted that the statements of the parties have been recorded and

the State has no serious objection in allowing this petition.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced.

Crl.MC.No. 7863 of 2018 4

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.

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.

Crl.MC.No. 7863 of 2018 5

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 charge

sheet and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the respondents 2

to 4 now pending as C.C.No.490 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Taliparamba are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP //True Copy// P.A.To Judge
Crl.MC.No. 7863 of 2018 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-1 COPY OF THE FIR NO 577/11 DATED 17.8.2011
OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE-2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
10.4.2012

ANNEXURE -3 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.11.2018

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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