SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Safeer vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY0 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 8906 of 2018

CC 218/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ATTINGAL

CRIME NO. 745/2014 OF Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

1 SAFEER, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, PANAYIL VEEDU, PARAMBILPALAM,
PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2 SUNITHA @ SAFIDA, AGED 33 YEARS,
W/O. ANWAR, KUNNUPURATHU VEEDU, KUNNUMPURAM DESOM,
ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

3 ANWAR, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU,KUNNUPURATHU VEEDU, KUNNUMPURAM DESOM,
ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

4 ISUMUDDDIN, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. SAINUDEEN,PANAYIL VEEDU, PARAMBIL PALAM, PALLIPURAM
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,,ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 SABITHA, AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O. THAHA, SABITHA MANZIL, KODIMANAKKADU, TC. 1/873,
STATION KADAVU, KAZHAKOOTTAM P.O, ATTIPRA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

R1 BY SRI. B JAYASURYA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2019, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8906 of 2018 2

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).

2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in

C.C.No.218 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class-II, Attingal. The 1st petitioner is her husband and the

petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. They are being

proceeded against for having committed offences punishable

under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3. This 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 submits 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.No. 8906 of 2018 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.No. 8906 of 2018 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.218 of 2016 on the

file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Attingal are

quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,.

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

DSV/26.2.19
Crl.MC.No. 8906 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN (CC 218/16

PENDING BEFORE THE JFCM-II,ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

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