SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ratheesh Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 8615 of 2018

CC 315/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,
HARIPAD

CRIME NO. 81/2018 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION,
ALAPPUZHA

PETITIONER/S:

1 RATHEESH KUMAR
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. BHASKARAN,
KANDALTHARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
CHINGOLI MURI,
CHINGOLI VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

2 MANIYAMMA,
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. BHASKARAN, KANDALTHARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
CHINGOLI MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA

RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031
Crl.MC.No. 8615 of 2018

..2..

2 ATHIRA.T.MOHAN
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O. THANKAMANI, ARCHANA VIHAR,
20TH WARD, PALAYKKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA,
KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 069

BY ADV. SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI T R RENJITH PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8615 of 2018

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

petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized on 01.05.2017

and they were living together. In the course of their

connubial relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The

2nd petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. This finally

led to the institution of criminal proceedings at the

instance of the 2nd respondent. FIR was registered and

after investigation, final report was laid before the learned

Magistrate and the case is now pending as C.C.No. 315 of

2018 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I,

Haripad. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners are accused

of having committed offences punishable under Sections

498A, 323, 341 406 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the
Crl.MC.No. 8615 of 2018

..4..

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 part ways. It is

urged that the dispute is purely private in nature.

4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent,

invited the attention of this Court to the 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 2nd respondent has no objection in

allowing the prayer sought for.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting

instructions has submitted that the statement of the 2 nd

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.
Crl.MC.No. 8615 of 2018

..5..

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 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.

8. Having considered all the relevant circumstances,
Crl.MC.No. 8615 of 2018

..6..

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-II final report and all proceedings pursuant

thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.

315 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class-I, Haripad are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 8615 of 2018

..7..

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.

81/2018 DATED 17/01/2018 REGISTERED BY
THE KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C. NO. 315/2018 FILED BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-
1, HARIPAD

ANNEXURE III AFFIDAVIT DATED 22/11/2018 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Bka/29.01.2019

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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