IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No.8251 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.1720/2010 of J.M.F.C., KASARAGOD
CRIME NO. 268/2010 OF BEDAKOM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 PRAKASH @ JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.CHACKO, R/AT PAZHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHIKKANTAMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA POST AND VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2 CHACKO @ KURIAKOSE,
AGED 78 YEARS,
S/O.IYPE, R/AT PAZHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHIKKANTAMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA POST AND VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3 ANNAKKUTTY, AGED 68 YEARS,
W/O.CHACKO, R/AT PAZHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHIKKANTAMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA POST AND VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI
RESPONDENTS/STATE DWE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.
2 JOICY @ ALEESA,
AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.PRAKASH,
R/AT PAZHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIKKANTAMOOLA,
BANTHADUKKA POST AND VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK
AND DISTRICT – 671 541.
SRI. T. RENJITH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2018, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC:8251/18 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.1720 of
2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kasaragod.
In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having
committed offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34
of the IPC. The 2nd respondent, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner,
is the de facto complainant. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents
of the 1st petitioner.
3. The instant petition 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 2 nd respondent has been
recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the
proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC:8251/18 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 extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the proceedings.
Crl.MC:8251/18 4
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.1720 of 2010 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kasaragod are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
krj
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC:8251/18 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME
NO.268/2010 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 15/5/2018 SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.