IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6413 of 2018
CC 472/2017 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS – II, KOTHAMANGALAM
CRIME NO. 626/2017 OF POTHANIKADU POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOBISH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O MATHEW,CHANDRANKUNNEL HOUSE,
VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, POTHANIKKAD,
ERNAKULAM
BY ADV. ABHILASH S. FRANCIS
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2 ALBIN, AGED 32,
D/O ANTO P.MATHEW, PUTHIYIDATHU HOUSE,
PAINGOTTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM-686671
BY ADV. SRI.ARAVIND V MATHEW
SRI T R RENJITH-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6413 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 petitioner.
2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The
marriage between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent was
solemnized on 06.11.2011. In the course of their connubial
relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 2nd respondent
specifically alleged that the petitioner is guilty of culpable matrimonial
cruelty. This finally led to the institution of criminal proceedings at the
instance of the 2nd 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.472 of 2017 on the files of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class – II, Kothamangalam. In the aforesaid
case, the petitioner is accused of having committed offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 323 506 of the IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties
Crl.MC.No. 6413 of 2018 3
have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to live in
peace. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature. The
learned counsel 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 2nd 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 2nd 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
Crl.MC.No. 6413 of 2018 4
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.
7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of
the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its
extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1
FIR and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner in
C.C.No.472 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class –
II, Kothamangalam are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 6413 of 2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 626/17
REGISTERED BY THE POTHANIKKAD POLICE DATED
26.5.2017.
ANNEXURE 2 AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINAL FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 22.09.2018.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL