SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Maneesh John vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 7451 of 2018

CC 514/2017 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANJIRAPPALLY

CRIME NO. 603/2017 OF Manimala Police Station , Kottayam

PETITIONERS/A1 A2:
1 MANEESH JOHN,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O P.J.JOHN, PARAYIL HOUSE,
PONTHANPUZHA P. O, KARIMBANAKKULAM,
KARIKKATTOOR KARA, MANIMALA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

2 P.J.JOHN,
AGED 58 YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, PONTHANPUZHA P.O.,
KARIMBANAKKULAM, KARIKKATTOOR KARA, MANIMALA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.R.REJI

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANIMALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

2 LEEBAMOL.T.RAJAN,
AGED 30 YEARS, D/O RAJAN T.C., RESIDING AT
THYTHARAMALIYIL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR P.O., MANARCADU
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686
543.

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SRI. T.R. RENJITH-PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.7451 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 petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2

respectively in C.C.No.514 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class-II, Kanjirappally involving offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 406, 506(1) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The de

facto complainant, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent, is the wife of

the 1st petitioner herein and the 2nd petitioner is her father-in-law. In

the course of their matrimonial relationship, disputes occurred and the

parties fell apart. Criminal prosecution was initiated alleging

matrimonial cruelty. However, in the course of proceedings, with the

help and intervention of family members and relatives, the parties

have settled their differences and they are living in peace and

harmony. It is in the above scenario that this petition is filed to quash

the proceedings.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners as well as the party respondent that the parties are living
Crl.MC.No.7451 of 2018 3

together and in that view of the matter, the continuance of criminal

proceedings is an unwanted exercise. The 2nd respondent has filed an

affidavit wherein she has stated that she has no grievance against the

petitioners.

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 fighting it out in a court of

law, the courts should not hesitate to exercise its powers under section
Crl.MC.No.7451 of 2018 4

482 of the Code. Permitting such proceedings to continue would be

nothing, but an abuse of process of court.

7. The dispute is clearly private and continuance of proceedings

will only inure to cause inconvenience and hardship to the parties.

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.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 final

report and all proceddings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.514 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class-II, Kanjirappally are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No.7451 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CERTIFIED COPY OF
THE FIR IN CRIME NO.603/2017 OF MANIMALA
POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.514/2017 ON THE FILES OF JFCM II,
KANJIRAPPALLY.

ANNEXURE A3: NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 03.11.2018.

RESPONDENT’S/S 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