SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Johny Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 8 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 19TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 406 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 577/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS – III, KOLLAM

CRIME NO. 702/2013 OF Kollam West Police Station, Kollam

PETITIONER/S:

1 JOHNY VARGHESE, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. VARGHESE, PALLIYPURAYIDAM, CONVENT NAGAR-110,
ERAVIPURAM CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691011.

2 MOLY @ MEBLE, AGED 57 YEARS,
W/O. VARGHESE, PALLIYPURAYIDAM, CONVENT NAGAR-110,
ERAVIPURAM CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691011.

3 THOMAS VARGHESE, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O. VARGHESE, PALLIYPURAYIDAM, CONVENT NAGAR-110,
ERAVIPURAM CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691011.

4 VARGHESE, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. CHERIYAN, PALLIYPURAYIDAM, CONVENT NAGAR-110,
ERAVIPURAM CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691011.

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.S.SEETHA

RESPONDENT/S:

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

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM – 691015.
Crl.MC.No. 406 of 2019

2

3 NISHA STANLY,
D/O. STANLY LAYONZ, AGED 30 YEARS,
POOMUKHAM, THUNDUPARAMBIL, THANGASSERY,
KOLLAM FROM ARIKKARI PARAMBIL VEEDU, NEAR MARKET
ROAD, THANGASSERY P.O., KOLLAM-691007.

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
SRI. AMJAD ALI SR. PP.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 406 of 2019

3

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (‘the Code” for brevity).

2. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.

577 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II

(Temporary), Kollam. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband of the

de facto complainant and the petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives.

They are being proceeded against for having committed offence

punishable under Section 498A and 323 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The instant proceeding is filed with a prayer to quash the

proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 3rd

respondent has filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish to

continue with the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He

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

and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it

involves no public interest.

Crl.MC.No. 406 of 2019

4

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 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.

Crl.MC.No. 406 of 2019

5

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 final

report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.577 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-II (Temporary), Kollam are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

avs
Crl.MC.No. 406 of 2019

6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH PRIVATE
COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.702/2013 OF KOLLAM
WEST POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE-2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
702/2013 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE-3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
REGARDING THE COMPROMISE DATED 29/10/2018.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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