SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mujeeb Rahman vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2018

N THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6875 of 2018

CC 350/2013 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI

CRIME NO. 569/2013 OF AREEKODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

1 MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE P.K.ALI, CHAKKUTHODI HOUSE, AALUKKAL P.O.,
UGRAPURAM, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2 P.K. NAFEESA, AGED 72 YEARS,
W/O LATE P.K.ALI, CHAKKUTHODI HOUSE, AALUKKAL P.O.,
UGRAPURAM, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

(CRIME NO.569/2013 OF AREEKODE POLICE STATION)

2 SALINABA, AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O ABDUL KHADER, PALAKKAL HOUSE,
MAVOOR AMSOM, CHEROOPA DESOM,
CHEROOPA P.O., 673661, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI T R RENJITH
R2 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6875 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 petitioners.

2. The petitioners are son and mother respectively. The 2 nd

respondent is the wife of the 1 st petitioner. The marriage between

the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on

20.03.2005. In the course of their connubial relationship, serious

disputes cropped up. The 2nd respondent specifically alleges that the

petitioners are guilty of culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally led

to the institution of criminal proceedings at the instance of the 2 nd

respondent. Annexure-A1 FIR was registered and after investigation,

final report was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is

now pending as C.C.No.350 of 2013 on the files of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court, Manjeri. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners are

accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections

498A, 406 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties

have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to live
Crl.MC.No. 6875 of 2018 3

in peace. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature. The

learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, invited the

attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent and

asserts that the disputes inter se have been settled and the

continuance of criminal proceedings will only result in gross

inconvenience and hardship. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent

has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has

submitted that the statement of the 2nd respondent has been

recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the

settlement arrived at is genuine.

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
Crl.MC.No. 6875 of 2018 4

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 extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash

the proceedings.

8. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners now pending as C.C.No.350 of 2013 on the file of the

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE

DSV/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 6875 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 569/2013 AREEKODE POLICE
STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.10.2018 SWORN IN BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 6875 of 2018 6

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh