SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramla vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2018

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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