IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8718 of 2018
CC 114/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KASARAGOD
CRIME NO. 534/2017 OF Badiadukka Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6:
1 RIFAYI U @ MOIDEEN RIFAYI,
AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O. HAMEED, PADALADUKKA, MUGHU VILLAGE,
BADIADKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2 AYISHA, AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O. LATE HAMEED, MUGHU VILLAGE, BADIADKA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3 MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O. LATE HAMEED, MUGHU VILLAGE, BADIADKA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
4 HAJEERATH JEMSHEERA,
AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O. LATE HAMEED, MUGHU VILLAGE, BADIADKA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
5 MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. LATE HAMEED, MUGHU VILLAGE, BADIADKA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
6 JAMEELA, AGED 38 YEARS,
MUGHU VILLAGE, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT STATE:
1 MARIYAMBEE, AGED 21 YEARS,
MARINE (P.O), EDNAD VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 552.
Crl.MC.No. 8718 of 2018 2
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BADIADKA POLICE STATION,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671541.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SREERAJ
R2 R3 SRI. AMJAD ALI, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8718 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 1st respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner.
The petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the near relatives of the 1 st
petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioners subjected
the 1st respondent to cruelty and ill treatment demanding dowry.
A crime was registered at her instance and after investigation,
final report was filed before the learned Magistrate and the case is
now pending as C.C.No.114 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class-II, Kasaragod. In the aforesaid case, the
petitioners are accused of having committed offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324 and 498A of the IPC.
3. 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
Crl.MC.No. 8718 of 2018 4
and have decided to part ways. It is urged that the dispute is
purely private in nature. The learned counsel for the 1 st
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 1 st
respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.
4. 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.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the materials on record.
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
Crl.MC.No. 8718 of 2018 5
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.
7. 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-B final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto
against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.114 of 2018 on the
Crl.MC.No. 8718 of 2018 6
files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kasaragod are
quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
DSV/14.2.19
Crl.MC.No. 8718 of 2018 7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 534/2017
BADIADKA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
534/2017 WHICH IS PENDING AS C.C.
NO.114/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,
KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
11.10.2018.
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE