IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7509 of 2018
IN CC NO.1660/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE J.M.F.C., ADOOR
CRIME NO.911/2010 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 3 AND 4:
1 MOHAMED ANSARI, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SHEIK MYDEEN, RESIDING AT 12,
THEVAR STREET, M.K.PURAM, MADURAI-625011.
2 SMT. AISHA BIVI, AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O.LATE SHEIK MYDEEN, RESIDING AT 12,
THEVAR STREET, M.K.PURAM, MADURAI-625011.
3 SMT. NABISHA, AGED 38 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SHEIK MYDEEN, RESIDING AT 12,
THEVAR STREET, M.K.PURAM, MADURAI-625011.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031.
2 A.BARKKATHNISA, AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O. SHAIK DAVOOD, AMINA BHAVAN,
ERADIMANGALAM P.O., ELAAMANNUR VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA AND PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT 64/85, K.K.STREET, VADAKARI,
SENGOTTAI, TAMILNADU-627 812.
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
MR. RAMESH CHAND – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC:7509/18 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1 st petitioner.
Their marriage was solemnized and they were living together. In
the course of their connubial relationship, serious disputes
cropped up. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and sister of
the 1st petitioner. 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
2nd respondent. FIR was registered and after investigation, final
report was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is now
pending as C.C.No.1660 of 2010 on the files of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Pathanamthitta. In the aforesaid case,
the petitioners are accused of having committed offence
punishable under Sections 498A r/w. 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners herein
along with the 2nd respondent had subjected the 2 nd respondent to
cruelty and harassment demanding dowry.
CRL.MC:7509/18 3
4. The instant petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. It is
submitted that in the course of proceedings before the Family
Court, the parties have settled all the disputes and a compromise
was entered into, wherein they have decided to part ways. He
would refer to Annexure-A3 order in I.A. No.1444 of 2014 and
compromise decree dated 1.1.2015 in O.P No.1021 of 2013 of the
Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The 2nd respondent has also filed
an affidavit stating that she does not wish to continue with the
prosecution proceedings against the petitioners.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions.
He submitted 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.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the materials on record.
7. 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
CRL.MC:7509/18 4
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 proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2
final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto pending against
the petitioners in C.C.No.1660 of 2010 on the files of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Pathanamthitta are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
krj ////TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
CRL.MC:7509/18 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO
911 OF 2010 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION OF
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT TOGETHER WITH
COMPLAINT FILED BY SECOND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO 911 OF 2010 OF ADOOR POLICE
STATION OF PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICTTOGETHER
WITH THE THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT ADOOR IN PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO 1444 OF
2014 AND COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 1.1.2015
IN OP NO 1021 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.10.2018
SWORN IN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE
NOTARY PUBLIC.
