SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hussain vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 7724 of 2018

CRIME NO. 733/2018 OF POTHANIKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

1 HUSSAIN, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED, PALAKKATTU HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA,
VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.

2 KHADEEJA, AGED 53 YEARS,
W/O.MUHAMMED, PALAKKATTU HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA,
VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 691.

3 MUHAMMED, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O.MEERAN, PALAKKATTU HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA,
VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 691.

4 SUBINI, AGED 27 YEARS,
W/O.SHAJI, ATHIKKUZHI HOUSE, METHALA KARA,
ASHAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683 542.

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN -682031.

2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB ISNPECTOR OF POLICE,
POTHANIKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PINCODE-686671
(REPRESENTED BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME
NO.733/2018 OF POTHANIKAD POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-686671)
Crl.MC:7724/18 2

3 SANEESHA, AGED 22 YEARS,
D/O.NABEESA MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT MAMMUNNITHODIYIL
HOUSE, NELLIKUZHI KARA, IRAMALLOOR VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN-688537.

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI – SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC:7724/18 3

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (‘the Code” for brevity).

2. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime

No.733 of 2018 of the Pothanikad Police Station. The petitioners

herein are the husband and in-laws of the 3 rd respondent and they

are being proceeded against for having committed offence

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

3. The instant proceeding is initiated with a prayer to quash

the proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 3rd

respondent has filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish to

continue with the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions.

He submitted that the statement of the 3rd respondent has been

recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the

proceedings as it involves no public interest.

Crl.MC:7724/18 4

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:7724/18 5

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 FIR

in Crime No.733 of 2018 of the Pothanikad Police Station and all

proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
krj
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC:7724/18 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.733/2018
OF POTHANIKAD POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT GIVEN BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:- NIL

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh