IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 185 of 2019
CC NO.784/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE J.F.M.C-I, MANJERI
CRIME NO. 83/2017 OF KALIKAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
1 MOHAMMED SHAFI
ALL ARE RESIDING AT –
KUNDUKULAVAN HOUSE, SRAMBIKKALLU, PULLANKODE P.O.,
BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KALIKAVU POLICE STATION, KALIKAVU,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676525.
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL KAREEM,
PANNIKOTTUMUNDA HOUSE, CHOKKAD P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679332.
BY ADV. SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI
SRI T R RENJITH PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 185 of 2019 2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.
No.784 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,
Manjeri. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 3rd respondent and
petitioners 2 and 3 are his near relatives. They are being proceeded
against for having committed offence punishable under Sections 498A,
406, 506(i) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The instant petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 3rd
respondent has filed Annexure-D affidavit stating that she does not
wish to continue with the prosecution proceedings against the
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He
submitted that the statement of the 3 rd respondent has been recorded
and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it
involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 185 of 2019 3
5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the materials on record.
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 proceedings to continue
would be nothing, but an abuse of process of court. The interest of
justice also require that the proceedings be quashed.
7. 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
Crl.MC.No. 185 of 2019 4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-C final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners
now pending as C.C.No.784 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
Crl.MC.No. 185 of 2019 5
ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01/05/2017
GIVEN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM.
ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE
KALIKAVU POLICE IN CRIME NO.83/2017.
ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SI OF POLICE,
KALIVKAVU IN CRIME NO.83/2017 OF KALIKAVU
ANNEXURE-D AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT