IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7775 of 2018
IN CC NO.342/2016 ON THE FILES OF J.M.F.C.-I, KOZHIKODE
CRIME NO.349/2016 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMDDALI, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O ABUBAKKER, THAYYULLATHIL (H), KARACHUNDU P.O,
KOYILANI TALUK, KOZHIKODE
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI
SRI.RANJIT BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673525
3 FASNA, AGED 23 YEARS,
D/O. IBRAHIM, KURIKKAL KOLLI (H), KAYANNA (P.O.)
MATTANODU DESAM, KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673526.
BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T. R. RENJITH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.7775/2018 2
ORDER
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.342 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,
Perambra. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 3rd respondent
and he is being proceeded against for having committed offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 498A 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 an affidavit stating that she does not wish to
continue with the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner.
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.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
CRL.M.C.7775/2018 3
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 extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner
CRL.M.C.7775/2018 4
now pending as C.C. No.342 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate-I, Perambra are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
Krj
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
CRL.M.C.7775/2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.
349/2018 ON PERAMBRA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-2 THE CERTIFIED CIOY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C. NO.342/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,
PERAMBRA.
ANNEXURE-3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.11.2018 EXECUTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL
