IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 157 of 2019
IN CC NO.121/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE J.M.F.C.-I, KANNUR
CRIME NO.92/2013 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR
MARZOOK ARAYIL PURATH,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. RASAC ARAYIL PURATH, ABIRAS VILLA, P.O.
KURICHIYIL, NEW MAHE, KANNUR DISTRICT.
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 RAISA P.K., AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O. P.K. ASHARAF, FATHIMA MANZHIL,
NEAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, KANNUR-1.
BY ADV. SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC
SRI. T. R. RENJITH PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The petitioner herein is the 1 st accused in C.C. No.121 of
2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur.
The said case arises from Crime No.92 of 2013 of the Kannur Town
Police Station. The petitioner, his mother and sister were the
accused in the said Crime, which was registered at the instance of
the 2nd respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner, under
3. As the petitioner was working abroad, the trial was
proceeded against accused Nos.2 and 3. In the course of
proceedings, the parties were able to arrive at a settlement. The 2 nd
respondent did not support her case when the case came up for trial
and hence, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were found not guilty and were
acquitted of all charges by Annexure-4 judgment. The case against
the petitioner herein was split up and re-filed as C.C. No.121 of
2016. While the proceedings were pending as aforesaid, the 2 nd
respondent has sworn to Annexure-6 affidavit, wherein she has
stated that she does not wish to continue with the prosecution
proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who submitted that
the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it
involves no public interest.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
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 extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-1 FIR
and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now
pending as C.C. No.121 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Kannur are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH COMPLAINT IN
CRIME NO. 92/2013 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31.1.2013
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DIVORCE CERTIFICATE
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT CC 883/13 DATED
22.1.2016 OF THE JFCM COURT-1, KANNUR.
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE FLIGHT TICKET.
ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE