IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7706 of 2018
CC NO.1009/2015 ON THE FILES OF J.M.F.C.-II,PERINTHALMANNA
CRIME NO. 104/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
HAMSA, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O KUNHAYAMU, PUTHENPEEDIKA HOUSE,
ARAKKUPARAMBA.P.O, THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE,
PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION THROUGH
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 AYISHA,
D/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS,
PUTHENPEEDIKA HOUSE, ARAKKUPARAMBA.P.O,
THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 341.
BY ADV. SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP
SRI. B. JAYASURYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7706 of 2018 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (‘the Code” for brevity).
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.
No.1009 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,
Perinthalmanna. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 2 nd
respondent and he is being proceeded against for having committed
offence punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498A 506(i) of the IPC.
3. The instant petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 2nd
respondent has filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish to
continue with the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He
submitted that the statement of the 2nd respondent has been recorded
and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it
involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 7706 of 2018 3
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. 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. 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. 7706 of 2018 4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-II final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now
pending as C.C.No.1009 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 7706 of 2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.
104 OF 2014 PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION
DATED 16.1.2014
ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT, IN
CRIME NO. 104 OF 2014 PERINTHALMANNA POLICE
STATION DATED 07.02.2014
ANNEXURE III ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.10.2018
SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL
