SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Leo vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2018

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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