SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sajeev vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6874 of 2018

CC 943/2017 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
NEYYATINKARA

CRIME NO. 687/2016 OF ARIYANCODE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

1 SAJEEV,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O. SOMAN, SAROVARAM, SASTHAMKONAM, KEEZHAROOR,
NEYYATTINKARA, ARIYANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,
KERALA, INDIA.

2 SAROJINI AMMA,
SAROVARAM, SASTHAMKONAM, KEEZHAROOR, NEYYATTINKARA,
ARIYANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, KERALA, INDIA.

BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ARIYANCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 125.

3 RESHMI H.L.,
AGED 25, D/O. LATHAKUMARI, REKSHMI NILAYAM,
NEPPEKONAM, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
507.

SRI C K PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 R1
ADV.T.MANASY FOR R3

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6874 of 2018 2

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 3rd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd

petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between

the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent was solemnized on

28.10.2015. In the course of their connubial relationship, serious

disputes cropped up. The 3rd respondent specifically alleged that the

petitioners are guilty of culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally led

to the institution of criminal proceedings at the instance of the 3 rd

respondent. Annexure-A FIR was registered and after investigation,

Annexure-B final report was laid before the learned Magistrate and

the case is now pending as C.C.No.943 of 2017 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara. In the

aforesaid case, the petitioners are accused of having committed

offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section

34 of the IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties
Crl.MC.No. 6874 of 2018 3

have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to live

in peace. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature. The

learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent, invited the

attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by 3 rd respondent 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 3 rd 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 3 rd 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.

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
Crl.MC.No. 6874 of 2018 4

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.

8. 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.943 of 2017 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV/-

//True Copy// P.A.To Judge
Crl.MC.No. 6874 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.

0687/2016 OF ARIYANCODE POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO.

943 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
NEYYATTINKARA.

ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.

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 *

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