IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 17TH POUSHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8570 of 2018
CC 210/2015 of J.M.F.C., PONNANI
CRIME NO. 482/2014 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.K. KUNJIMUHAMMED
S/O.MARIYAKUTTY,KALIYARAKKATH
KAKKATHARAYIL HOUSE,
KALACHAL,ALANCODE.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 FOUSIYA
D/O MOHAMMED AYOOB,PARUVINGAL HOUSE,
EDAPPAL.P.O,THALAMUDA DESOM,
PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SRI AMJAD ALI-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8570 of 2018 2
ORDER
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 C.C.
No.210 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Ponnani. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 2 nd respondent
and he is being proceeded against for having committed offence
punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 506(ii) r/w. Section 34 of the
IPC.
3. The instant 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 petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He
submitted that the statement of the 2 nd respondent has been recorded
Crl.MC.No. 8570 of 2018 3
and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it
involves no public interest.
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
Crl.MC.No. 8570 of 2018 4
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-B final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now
pending as C.C.No.210 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Ponnani are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 8570 of 2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.482/2014
OF THE CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE CHANGARAMKULAM,POLICE BEFORE THE JFCM
COURT,PONNANI.
ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL
