SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jayakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 7014 of 2018

CC 1696/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-
III,PALAKKAD

CRIME NO. 346/2015 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 3:

1 JAYAKRISHNAN,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O SOMAN PILLA, KRIPAS, THOTTAPPUZHASSERI, P.O.
MARAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

2 PRASANNA KUMARI,
AGED 59 YEARS,
W/O. SOMAN PILLA, KRIPAS, THOTTAPPUZHASSERI, P.O.
MARAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM – 682031.

2 BINDU,
AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. APPUKUTTAN MENON, SREE
PADMANABHAM, G.K. NIVAS, CHERAD, P.O. MALAMPUZHA-678
651, PALAKKAD.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH

R1 SRI C K PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7014 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 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd

petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between

the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on

31.08.2011. In the course of their connubial relationship, serious

disputes cropped up. The 2nd respondent specifically alleged that the

petitioners are 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, Annexure-AII

final report was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is

now pending as C.C.No.1696 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad. In the aforesaid case, the

petitioners are accused of having committed offences punishable

under Sections 323, 406 and 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 have decided to live
Crl.MC.No. 7014 of 2018 3

in peace. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature. The

learned counsel appearing for the 2nd 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 2 nd 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
Crl.MC.No. 7014 of 2018 4

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.

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

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1696 of 2015 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE
DSV/- //True Copy// P.A.To Judge
Crl.MC.No. 7014 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE AI A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE DEFACATO COMPLAINANT

ANNEXURE AII A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
346/2015 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF
COMPOUNDING OF THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES AND
THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE
PARTIES.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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