SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammed Rishad vs The State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 896 of 2019

SC 243/2014 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, MANJERI

CRIME NO. 483/2012 OF Melattur Police Station, Malappuram

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 MOHAMMED RISHAD, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O. MOHAMMED ASHARAF, KURUMBAYIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2 MOHAMMED ASHARAF, AGED 65 YEARS,
KURUMBAYIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

3 RAMLA P., AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O. MOHAMMED ASHARAF, KURUMBAYIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

4 RISHNA K, AGED 33 YEARS,
W/O. BINU NOUFAL, KEVUDAN PARADISE, HIGH SCHOOL PADI, WANDOOR
ROAD, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031.

2 SHAMNA MOL, AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O. MOHAMMED ASHRAF, ULLATTUPARA, MULLYAKURSI AMSOM,
PATTIKKAD P.O, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -679 325.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

R1 BY SRI AMJAD ALI, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 896 of 2019 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 de facto complainant in

S.C.No.243 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I,

Manjeri. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband of the de facto

complainant and the petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. They are

being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506(i) and 511 of 315 r/w. Section 34

of the IPC.

3. As per the charge laid before the jurisdictional court, the

allegation is that the petitioners herein subjected the 2 nd respondent to

cruelty and harassment and also forced her to consume tablets in an

attempt to terminate her pregnancy.

4. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings

on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 2nd respondent has

filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish to continue with the

prosecution proceedings against the petitioners.
Crl.MC.No. 896 of 2019 3

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 gone

through 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 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
Crl.MC.No. 896 of 2019 4

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-B

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners now pending as S.C.No.243 of 2014 on the file of the

Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE

DSV/13.2.19 //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 896 of 2019 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.

483/2012 OF THE MELATTOOR POLICE STATION
DATED, 4-10-2012.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN
CRIME NO. 483/2012 OF THE MELATTOOR POLICE
STATION.

ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED, 30-07-2018.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

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

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