SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Joji Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6945 of 2017

CC 19/2017 of J.M.F.C.-I,KANJIRAPPALLY

CRIME NO. 1213/2016 OF Mundakayam Police Station, Kottayam

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

JOJI THOMAS,
S/O. THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, KUNNEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
VANDANPATHAL P.O, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE, MUNDAKAYAM.

BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-692 031.

2 JINCY JOSE,
AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. JOSE, MUNDATTU HOUSE, CHENNADU
P.O, POONJAR SOUTH VILLAGE-686581.

R2 BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

R1 BY SRI C K PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6945 of 2017 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 petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.19 of

2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Kanjirappally. He is accused of having committed the offence

punishable under Section 498A IPC. The 2nd respondent is the de

facto complainant and she is the wife of the petitioner herein.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family

members, the parties have decided to put an end to their discord.

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

counsel has heavily relied upon Annexure-A6 settlement

agreement and also Annexure-A7 affidavit filed by the de facto

complainant to substantiate his contention. According to the

learned counsel, the continuance of criminal proceedings will only

result in gross inconvenience and hardship.
Crl.MC.No. 6945 of 2017 3

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 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
Crl.MC.No. 6945 of 2017 4

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-A3 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto

against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.19 of 2017 on the

file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirappally are

quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE
DSV/-

Crl.MC.No. 6945 of 2017 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10/11/2016
IN CMP NO. 506/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,
KANJIRAPPALLY.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1213/2016
OF MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 1213/2016, TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF BY
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-
1, KANJIRAPPALLY AS CC NO. 19/2017 DATED
15/12/2016.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL
PETITION NO. 541/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE
FAMILY COURT, PALA DATED 16/11/2016.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 786/2016 IN O.P NO.

541/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT,
PALA.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF MEDIATION
IN OP NO. 541/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE
FAMILY COURT,PALA.

ANNEXURE A7 AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.10.2018 SWORN BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT
OF ALL THE DISPUTES.

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 *

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