SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jaison vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6987 of 2018

CC 2606/2014 of J.M.F.C.,WADAKKANCHERRY

CRIME NO. 283/2013 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 JAISON
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. LATE OUSEPH, ALLOOR HOUSE, ERUMAPETTY P.O.,
ERUMAPETTY DESOM, KARIYANNOOR VILLAGE,
THALAPPALLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

2 MARY,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. LATE OUSEPH, ALLOOR HOUSE, ERUMAPETTY P.O.,
ERUMAPETTY DESOM, KARIYANNOOR VILLAGE,
THALAPPALLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR – 680 584.

3 LINTU
AGED 32 YEARS,D/O. VELLARA ANTONY,
KAROOR DESOM, THANGALLOOR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 020.

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

SRI. T R RENJITH-PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6987 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 petitioners.

2. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The

marriage between them was solemnized on 04.01.2009. In the course

of their connubial relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 3 rd

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 3 rd 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.2606 of

2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wadakkanchery, Thrissur. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners are

accused of having committed offence punishable under Sections 406,

420 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

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 to live in peace. It is

urged that the dispute is purely private in nature.
Crl.MC.No. 6987 of 2018 3

4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, invited the

attention of this Court to the 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 3rd respondent has no objection in allowing the

prayer sought for.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has

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

and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the settlement arrived at

is genuine.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced.

7. 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
Crl.MC.No. 6987 of 2018 4

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.

8. 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 final

report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.2606/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, Thrissur are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 6987 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
26.8.2013 IN CC.NO,2606/2014 ON THE FILES
OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT,VADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3D RESPONDENT
DATED 14.8.2018.

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