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. 8084 of 2018
CRIME NO.770/2017 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 RAMLA, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.AZEEZ, PEEDIEKKALPARAMBU, NETTOOR P.O.,
MARADU, ERNAKULAM.
2 AZEEZ, AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O.ALIYAR, PEEDIEKKALPARAMBU, NETTOOR P.O.,
MARADU, ERNAKULAM.
3 SANOOP, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.AZEEZ, PEEDIEKKALPARAMBU, NETTOOR P.O.,
MARADU, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR
SMT.T.M.BINITHA
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682024.
2 SHAFNA, AGED 21 YEARS
W/O.SANOOB, PEEDIYECKALPARAMBIL, MARADU,
PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM- 682040,
NOW RESIDING AT MANGATTU HOUSE,
EZUPUNNA SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA- 688 540.
BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. AMJAD ALI SR. 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.MC:8084/18 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The de facto complainant, who is arrayed as the 2 nd
respondent, is the wife of the 3rd petitioner herein. The petitioners 1
and 2 are his parents.
3. The marriage between the 3 rd petitioner and the 2nd
respondent was solemnized on 18.05.2014. In the course of their
connubial relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 2 nd
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 2nd respondent.
Annexure-A1 FIR was registered at the Panangad Police Station
under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
4. 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. In that view
CRL.MC:8084/18 3
of the matter, the continuance of criminal proceedings is an
unwanted exercise is the submission.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent,
invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-A2 affidavit filed by
her 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 2 nd respondent
has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.
6. 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.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced.
8. 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
CRL.MC:8084/18 4
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-A1 FIR
in Crime No.770 of 2017 of the Panangad Police Station and all
proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
KRJ
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
CRL.MC:8084/18 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.770/2017 OF PANANGAD
POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VIII,
ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 19.11.2018.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL
