SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mahesh Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 8212 of 2018

CC 813/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
NEDUMANGAD

CRIME NO. 1158/2012 OF VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 MAHESH MOHANAN,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. MOHANAN,
RESIDING AT GOURI NANDANAM, SRA-13 MAMBAZHAKUNNU
CHERUPALOD, PEROORKADA VILLAGE,
NETTAYAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 SHAILAJA,
AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O. AMMUKUTTY,
RESIDING AT GOURI NANDANAM, SRA-13, MAMBAZHAKUNNU
CHERUPALOD, PEROORKADA VILLAGE,
NETTAYAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3 MOHANAN,
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O. NEELAKANDAN,
RESIDING AT GOURI NANDANAM, SRA-13, MAMBAZHAKUNNU
CHERUPALOD, PEROORKADA VILLAGE,
NETTAYAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

4 SUMESH,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. MOHANAN,
RESIDING AT GOURI NANDANAM, SRA-13, MAMBAZHAKUNNU
CHERUPALOD, PEROORKADA VILLAGE,
NETTAYAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI
SMT.APARNA SUKUMARAN
Crl.MC.No. 8212 of 2018 2

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT INJURED:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATTIYOORKAVE
POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 1158/2012), VATTIYOORKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 KRISHNAKUMARI,
AGED 36 YEARS,
D/O. K.J. JANARDHANAN,
RESIDING AT RAKKONATHUKEEZHE PUTHEN VEEDU,
PEYAD P.O., VILAPPILSALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695573.

R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
R2 BY BY ADV. ARUN CHANDRAN A.K.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8212 of 2018 3

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 de facto complainant in

C.C.No.813 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-II, Nedumangad. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2 nd

respondent and petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. They are

proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under

Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The instant proceeding is initiated 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 submits that the statement of the 2 nd respondent has been

recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the

proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 8212 of 2018 4

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 extra ordinary powers under Section 482

of the Code to quash the proceedings.

Crl.MC.No. 8212 of 2018 5

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.813 of 2013 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE
DSV/- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 8212 of 2018 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.

813/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-11, NEDUMANGAD
WHICH AROSE FROM CRIME NO. 1158/2012 OF
VATTIYOORKAVU POLICES STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 25.10.2018 SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT ATTESTED BY NOTARY

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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