IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 669 of 2019
CRIME NO. 1752/2017 OF KOVALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:
1 JOWHAR JOWHARI, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O AMANULLAKHAN, THAZHEVETTUVILAKOM, HARBOR ROAD,
2 FATHIMUTHU SUHARA, AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O AMANULLAKHAN, THAZHEVETTUVILAKOM, HARBOR ROAD,
AGED 23 YEARS,
D/O FATHIMUTHU SUHARA, THAZHEVETTUVILAKOM, HARBOR ROAD,
4 SAINABA, AGED 33 YEARS,
D/O FATHIMUTHU SUHARA, THAZHEVETTUVILAKOM,
HARBOR ROAD, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 SOLIHA BEEVI, AGED 21 YEARS,
D/O MAJIDA, SOLIHA MANZIL, CHARUVILA HOUSE,
IYTHIYOOR, KARAKKATTUVILA, BALARAMAPURAM,
R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.RAJESH
R1 BY SRI.T.R. RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2019, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 669 of 2019 2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime
No.1752 of 2017 of the Kovalam Police Station. The 1 st petitioner
is the husband of the 2nd respondent and petitioners 2 to 4 are his
near relatives. They are being proceeded against for having
committed offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 2nd
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 2nd respondent has been
recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the
proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 669 of 2019 3
5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the materials on record.
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. 669 of 2019 4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed.
Annexure-A first information report in Crime No.1752 of 2017 of
the Kovalam Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto
against the petitioners are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
Crl.MC.No. 669 of 2019 5
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1752/2017 OF KOVALAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE