IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7037 of 2018
CC 689/2016 of J.M.F.C.-I,THRISSUR
CRIME NO. 313/2016 OF Viyyur Police Station , Thrissur
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 2:
1 LEO,
S/O. XAVIER MOHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, KALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KUNDUVARA, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 020.
2 LILLY,
W/O.XAVIER MOHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, KALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KUNDUVARA, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VIYYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
2 BINDHU MARIYA,
C/O.LATE PHILOMINA, AGED 24 YEARS, MANGATTU HOUSE,
PULLANIKADU, MADAKKATHARA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE (THETTAYIL)
SRI T R RENJITH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7037 of 2018 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 petitioners.
2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1 st petitioner. The 2nd
petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between
the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on
18.05.2014. In the course of their connubial relationship, serious
disputes cropped up. The 2nd respondent specifically alleges that the
petitioners are guilty of culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally led
to the institution of criminal proceedings at the instance of the 2 nd
respondent. FIR was registered and after investigation, final report
was laid and the case is now pending as C.C.No.689 of 2016 on the
files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thrissur. In the
aforesaid case, the petitioners are accused of having committed
offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family members,
the parties have decided to put an end to their discord and have
decided to live in peace. It is urged that the dispute is purely private
Crl.MC.No. 7037 of 2018 3
in nature. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, invited the
attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by her and asserts that
the disputes inter se have been settled and the continuance of
criminal proceedings will only result in gross inconvenience and
hardship. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has no objection in
allowing the prayer sought for.
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
Crl.MC.No. 7037 of 2018 4
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.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-
A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the
petitioners now pending as C.C.No.689 of 2016 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class – I, Thrissur are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 7037 of 2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.313/2016 OF
VIYYOOR POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE
STATEMENT GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
06.02.2016.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.313/2016 OF VIYYOOR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.10.2018 OF 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL