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
