IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7162 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN LP 116/2013 of J.M.F.C.,PARAPPANANGADI
CRIME NO. 373/2009 OF TANUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MOHAMMADALI, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.UNNIKOYA, KUZHIKATTIL VEEDU,
PUTHUKODE POST, RAMANATTUKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN 676302.
2 FATHIMA,
D/O.KUNHIMMU, AGED 44 YEARS, CHERUPURAKKAL HOUSE,
AAL BAZAR, KORMAN KADAPPURAM, POST TANUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676302.
3 SAFIYA,
D/O.KUNHIMMU, AGED 43 YEARS, CHERUPURAKKAL HOUSE,
AAL BAZAR, KORMAN KADAPPURAM, POST TANUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676302.
BY ADV. SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
SRI C K PRASAD PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7162 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 petitioner.
2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The
marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was
solemnized about 26 years back. As the 2 nd respondent is a deaf
and dumb, she is represented by her younger sister, who is the 3 rd
respondent herein. When disputes arose between the parties, a
complaint was lodged before the learned Magistrate by the 3 rd
respondent alleging offence punishable under Section 406 and 498A
r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The family members of the petitioner
were also arrayed as accused. In the course of investigation, they
were removed from the array of parties. Specific allegation is that
the petitioner had subjected the de facto complainant to culpable
matrimonial cruelty. After completion of investigation, final report
was laid before the court below. As the petitioner was not in station,
the case was removed to the register of Long Pending cases and is
now pending as L.P. No.116 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Parappanangadi.
Crl.MC.No. 7162 of 2018 3
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, the
parties have settled the entire disputes. The petitioner as well as the
2nd respondent are the parents of two children and their future
prospects were also considered while arriving at the settlement. The
learned counsel has referred to Annexure-A4 agreement entered
into between the parties, by which the entire terms were reduced in
writing. He would also refer to Annexures-A5 and A6 affidavits sworn
to by the respondents 2 and 3 to substantiate his contention.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3
would support the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents have no further
grievance and they have no objection in terminating the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has
submitted that the statement of the 3rd respondent has been
recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the
settlement arrived at is genuine.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced.
Crl.MC.No. 7162 of 2018 4
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 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.
8. 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.
Crl.MC.No. 7162 of 2018 5
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A3
final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the
petitioner now pending as L.P.No. 116/2013 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Parappanangadi are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 7162 of 2018 6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND NUMBERED AS CMP
NO.2329/2009 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI.
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 16.9.2009 IN CRIME
NO.373/2009 OF TANUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.373/2009 OF TANUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.9.2018
EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.9.2018 EXECUTED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.9.2018 EXECUTED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL