N THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
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,
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
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
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.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
DSV/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 6875 of 2018 5
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 569/2013 AREEKODE POLICE
ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.10.2018 SWORN IN BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Crl.MC.No. 6875 of 2018 6