SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Marzook Arayil Purath vs The State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

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

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

MARZOOK ARAYIL PURATH,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. RASAC ARAYIL PURATH, ABIRAS VILLA, P.O.
KURICHIYIL, NEW MAHE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN

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

OTHER PRESENT:
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:
CRL.MC:157/2019 2

ORDER

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

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

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
CRL.MC:157/2019 3

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.

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
CRL.MC:157/2019 4

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

proceedings.

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.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
krj

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
CRL.MC:157/2019 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH COMPLAINT IN
CRIME NO. 92/2013 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE
STATION.

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
2ND RESPONDENT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh