SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jobish vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2018

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

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