IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 258 of 2015
CC 349/2013 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, HARIPAD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 2:
1 GIRISH VARADURAJU KALMADY,
AGED 45 YEARS,
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MEDICAL OFFICER, ADMINISTRATION, WESTERN
RAILWAY, MUMBAI CENTRAL, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA.
SR.D.M.O., R.W.F., YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
2 SARALAMMA VARADARAJU,
AGED 75 YEARS,
W/O VARADARAJU, HITHESHI MANILA, MANIYANGALA TRUST @ MNANIAHGALA
OLD AGE HOME NO.17, FIRST MAIN ROAD, 1B, KUMPANA LAYOUT, PALACE
GUTTAHALLI,BANGALORE, NOW RESIDING AT NO.2.FLRGRD IMPERIAL
MANSION, WESTERN RAILWAY, TRANSIT FLAT,CUTTAPARADE, MUMBAI,
C/O.K.V. GIRISH, SR. D.M.O. R.W.F., YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 VIDHI @ RESHMI GIRISH KALMADI,
AGED 34 YEARS,
D/O SYILAJA, AYYAPPA VIHAR, KARUVATTA,
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADVS.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA.M.N
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 258 of 2015 2
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 1st respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner.
Their marriage was solemnized on 23.03.2010 and they were
living together. In the course of their connubial relationship,
serious disputes cropped up. The 2nd petitioner is the mother of
the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent specifically alleges that the
petitioners are guilty of culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally
led to the institution of criminal proceedings at the instance of the
1st respondent. FIR was registered and after investigation, final
report was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is now
pending as C.C.No.349 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class-II, Haripad. In the aforesaid case, the
petitioners are accused of having committed offence punishable
3. 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
and have decided to part ways. It is urged that the dispute is
purely private in nature. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent, invited the attention of this Court to the counter
affidavit filed and Annexure-R1(a) settlement agreement by her
and 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 1 st
respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions
has submitted that the statement of the 1 st respondent has been
recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the
settlement arrived at is genuine.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the materials on record.
Crl.MC.No. 258 of 2015 4
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. 258 of 2015 5
In the result, this petition will stand allowed and all
proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending
as C.C.No.349 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class-II, Haripad are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
DSV/7.2.19 //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 258 of 2015 6
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. NO.
349/2013 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, HARIPAD.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2014 IN
PETITION E-151/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, MUMBAI
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL ATTENDANCE
CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED
19.01.2009 ISSUED FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE