IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8793 of 2018
CC NO.353/2018 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
CRIME NO.1481/2016 OF MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
JINEESH P.J., AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O JEEVARAJAN, PALLTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PONJIKARA, MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.B.SAJAN
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 KRIPA, AGED 21 YEARS,
PALLTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONJIKARA,
R2 BY ADV. P.SREEKUMAR
R1 BY SRI. T. R. RENJITH PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8793 of 2018 2
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.353 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-I, Ernakulam. The petitioner is the husband of the 2 nd
respondent and he is proceeded against for having committed
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner
subjected the 2nd respondent to matrimonial cruelty demanding
4. 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.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained
instructions. He submitted that the statement of the 2 nd
Crl.MC.No. 8793 of 2018 3
respondent has been recorded and the State has no objection in
terminating the proceedings as it involves no public interest.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
gone through the materials on record.
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 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
Crl.MC.No. 8793 of 2018 4
view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
In the result, this petition will stand allowed.
Annexure-2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto
against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.353 of 2018 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ernakulam are
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
Crl.MC.No. 8793 of 2018 5
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO. 1481/2016 DATED
05-12-2016 OF MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
22-03-2017 OF MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT OF CW1 IN C.C NO 353/2018 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE I, COURT,