SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gladson vs State Of Kerala on 18 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 28TH POUSHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 8905 of 2018

1111/2017 of SPL.COURT OF JMFC FOR TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138 NI
ACT(JMFC XI)

CRIME NO. 1777/2016 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

GLADSON, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O. ALEX, A.J.HOUSE, BEACH ROAD P.O,
KANNANTHURA, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007.

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

2 NEENU,
D/O.VIRGIN, AGED 32 YEARS, NEENU HOUSE,
PUTHUKURICHI, KADINAMKULAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695303.

R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.PARVATHY

R1 BY SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8905 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 petitioner.

2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. In the

course of their connubial relationship, serious disputes cropped up.

The 2nd respondent specifically alleges that the petitioner is guilty of

culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally led to the institution of

criminal proceedings at the instance of the 2 nd 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.1111 of

2017 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class – XI,

Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner is accused

of having committed offence punishable under Sections 498A r/w

Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner 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
Crl.MC.No. 8905 of 2018 3

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, invited the attention of this

Court to Annexure-D affidavit filed 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 2nd 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 2 nd 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.

6. 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.
Crl.MC.No. 8905 of 2018 4

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

extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the

proceedings.

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

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner

now pending as C.C.No.1111 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 8905 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1777/2016
OF THE VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO,
1111/2017 OF THE TEMPORARY COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03.5.2017,
ENTERED INTO BY /BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN.

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.10.2017
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

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