IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 20TH POUSHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7804 of 2018
IN CC NO.734/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE J.M.F.C.-II, KASARAGOD
CRIME NO. 196/2016 OF Manjeswar Police Station , Kasargod
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 MUBARAK V.A., AGED 36 YEARS, A1
S/O ABOOBACKER V.M., R/AT BADRAVATHY COTTAGE,
MANJESWAR UDAYAMANGALAM ROAD, UDYAWAR VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2 ATHIKKA V.A., AGED 35 YEARS, A3
W/O. MOOSA, R/AT BISHAT MANZIL, MUNNIL NAGAR,
MUTTOM, SHIRIYA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3 ABDUL LATHEEF V.A., AGED 42 YEARS, A4
R/AT BADRAVATHY COTTAGE, MANJESWAR UDAYAMANGALAM
ROAD, UDYAWAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 FATHIMATH ASHBIYA,
D/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, R/AT MASHA ALLAH HOUSE,
MANNAKUZHI, UPPALA, MANJESHWAR TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.LOHITHAKSHAN CHATHADI KANNOTH
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7804 of 2018
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 C.C.No.
734 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II,
Kasaragod. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband of the 2 nd
respondent. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are his near relatives. They
are being proceeded against for having committed offence
punishable under Sections 498A and 324 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The instant proceeding 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.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions.
He submitted that the statement of the 2nd respondent has been
recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the
proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 7804 of 2018
3
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
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 extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1
Crl.MC.No. 7804 of 2018
4
final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the
petitioners now pending as C.C.No.734 of 2017 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kasargod are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
avs
Crl.MC.No. 7804 of 2018
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-A1 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.
EXHIBIT-A2 THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT.
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL