SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Faisal Babu vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 376 of 2019

CRIME NO. 346/2018 OF VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:

1 FAISAL BABU, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED @ BAVA, RESIDING AT BALLOOR HOUSE,
THEKKANKUTTUR POST, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 551.

2 MUHAMMED @ BAVA, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.KUNJHI MOIDEEN KUTTY,
RESIDING AT BALLOOR HOUE, THEKKANKUTTUR POST,
TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 551.

3 KADEEJA, AGED 39 YEARS,
W/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT BALLOOR HOUSE,
THEKKANKUTTUR POST, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 551.

4 AKBAR ALI, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT BALLOOR HOUSE,
THEKKANKUTTUR POST, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 551.

5 SHAHINA, AGED 24 YEARS,
W/O.FAISAL BABU, RESIDING AT BALLOOR HOUSE,
THEKKANKUTTUR POST, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 551.

BY ADV. SRI.S.K.PREMJITH MENON

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM – 682 031.
Crl.MC.No. 376 of 2019

..2..

2 SEENATH, AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O.ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT VETTIKATTIL HOUSE,
ATHAVANAD AMSOM DESOM, KURUMBATHOOR POST, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT – 676 301.

BY ADV. SRI.G.ANOOP MOHAN

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. AMJAD ALI-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 376 of 2019

..3..

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 petitioners.

2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime

No.346 of 2018 registered at the Valanchery Police Station. The

petitioners herein are the husband and in-laws of the 2 nd respondent

and they are being proceeded against for having committed offence

punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners

subjected the 2nd respondent to matrimonial cruelty.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family members,

the parties have decided to put an end to their discord. It is urged

that the dispute is purely private in nature.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent,

invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by her and
Crl.MC.No. 376 of 2019

..4..

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 2 nd respondent

has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions

has submitted that the statement of the 2 nd respondent has been

recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the

settlement arrived at is genuine.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have

perused the materials on record.

8. 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
Crl.MC.No. 376 of 2019

..5..

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.

9. 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-A1

FIR in Crime No.346 of 2018 of Valanchery Police Station,

Malappuram and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
bka
Crl.MC.No. 376 of 2019

..6..

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.346 OF 2018.

ANNEXURE A2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.

Bka/30.01.2019

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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