SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

P.K.Thomas vs Solly George on 23 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6271 of 2016

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.46/2015 ON THE FILES OF
J.M.F.C., RAMANKARI

CRIME NO.615/2014 OF Nedumudi Police Station, Alappuzha

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 4:

1 P.K.THOMAS,
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O KORAH, PATTIYAL HOUSE,
ONAMTHURUTHU P.O. KOTTAYAM.

2 LILLY THOMAS,
AGED 59 YEARS, W/O P.K.THOMAS, PATTIYAL HOUSE,
ONAMTHURUTHU P.O. KOTTAYAM.

3 KUNJUMON,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O P.K.THOMAS, PATTIYAL HOUSE,
ONAMTHURUTHU P.O. KOTTAYAM

BY ADVS.
SRI.V.K.SUNIL
SMT.PRIYANKA VARGHESE

RESPONDENTS/S:
1 SOLLY GEORGE, AGED 29 YEARS,
W/O GEORGE THOMAS, ARACKAL HOUSE,
PULLANGADI MURI, CHAMPAKULAM PANCHAYATH WARD VIII
NOW RESIDING AT PATTIYAL HOUSE, ONAMTHURUTHU P.O.
KOTTAYAM- 686 602.

2 GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O P.K.THOMAS, PATTIYAL HOUSE, ONAMTHURUTHU P.O.
KOTTAYAM- 686 602

3 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.
CRL.MC:6271/16 2

BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS

OTHER PRESENT:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. M. KAMAPPU

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC:6271/16 3

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 1st respondent is the wife of the 2 nd respondent.

Petitioners herein are the father, mother and brother respectively of

the 2nd respondent.

3. The marriage between respondents 1 and 2 was

solemnized on 22.08.2011. In the course of their connubial

relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 1st respondent

specifically alleges that the 2nd respondent and the petitioners are

guilty of culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally led to the

institution of criminal proceedings at the instance of the 1 st

respondent. FIR was registered and after investigation, final report

was laid under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The case is

now pending as C.C.No.46 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ramankary.

4. The petitioners had approached this Court in the year

2016 to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations
CRL.MC:6271/16 4

levelled against them did not make out an offence under Section

498A of the IPC. The proceedings before the court below was

stayed by this Court by order dated 22.9.2016. In the course of

proceedings, it appears that the disputes were settled and the

respondents 1 and 2 started living together. A child was born to

them as is evident from Annexure-A7 birth certificate. Now the 1 st

respondent has come forward and has filed an affidavit stating that

the entire disputes have been settled and the parties are living a

peaceful life. She asserts that she has no subsisting grievance and

she is not desirous of prosecuting the petitioners or the 2 nd

respondent.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions

has submitted that the statement of the 1 st respondent has been

recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the

settlement arrived at is genuine.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced.

7. 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
CRL.MC:6271/16 5

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.

8. The dispute is clearly private and continuance of

proceedings will only inure to cause inconvenience and hardship to

the parties. 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-A3 final

report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

and the 2nd respondent now pending as C.C.No.46 of 2015 on the
CRL.MC:6271/16 6

files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramankary are

quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
krj
CRL.MC:6271/16 7

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE POLICE
DATED 24-7-2014

ANNEXURE A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CC 46/15 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
1ST CLAS RAMANKARI

ANNEXURE A5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATMENT OF CW3
RECORDED UNDER SEC162 CR.PC

ANNEXUE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME
NO.615/14 OF NEDUMUDI POLICE STATION

ANNEXUE A4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATMENT OF CW2
RECORDED UNDER SEC162 CR.PC

ANNEXUE A6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATMENT OF CW4
RECORDED UNDER SEC162 CR.PC

ANNEXUE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE
CHILD OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.

ANNEXUE A8 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation