IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 1134 of 2019
CC 866/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOCHI
CRIME NO. 1655/2014 OF Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 JOSE VINU, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O ALBERT, KUDUVASSERY HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU KARA,
PALLURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 006.
2 JOSEPHINE, AGED 57 YEARS,
W/O. ALBERT, KUDUVASSERY HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU KARA,
PALLURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 006.
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT COMPLAINANT:
1 MONISHA, AGED 29 YEARS,
D/O. AUGUSTINE, KUTTATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, NORTH
THAMARAPPARAMBU, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
R2 SRI.B. JAYASURYA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1134 of 2019 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. The 1st respondent is the de facto complainant in
C.C.No.866 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-II, Kochi. The 1st petitioner is her husband and the 2nd
petitioner is his mother. They are being proceeded against for
having committed offence punishable under Section 498A r/w.
Section 34 of the IPC.
3. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 1st
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 1st
respondent has been recorded and the State has no objection in
terminating the proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 1134 of 2019 3
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. 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.
Crl.MC.No. 1134 of 2019 4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed.
Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto
against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.866 of 2016 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kochi are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
DSV/26.2.19
Crl.MC.No. 1134 of 2019 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC
NO.866/2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOCHI ARISING
OUT OF CRIME NO.1655/2014 OF PALLURUTHY
POLICE STATION DATED 11.11.2014.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST
RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2018.
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE