IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2019
CC 48/2019 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NEYYATTINKARA
CRIME NO. 103/2018 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 4:
1 SAJIKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O SADANANDAN, SAJI NIVAS, SATHYAN NAGAR,
NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 SANDHYA, AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O JAYAKUMARI, SAJI NIVAS, SATHYAN NAGAR,
NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 JAYAKUMARI, W/O. SADANANDAN,
AGED 55 YEARS
SAJI NIVAS, SATHYAN NAGAR, NEMOM VILLAGE,
4 SADANANDAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.CHELLAPPAN, SAJI NIVAS, SATHYAN NAGAR,
BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
2 DEEPA RAJENDRAN,
D/O LITTLE BAI, AGED 28 YEARS,
DRISHYA BHAVAN, THOTTATHUVILAKOM,
Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2019 2
R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN
SRI. AMJAD ALI SR. PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2019 3
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.48 of 2019 on the file of the Temporary Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara. The 1st petitioner herein is the
husband of the 2nd respondent and the petitioners 2 to 4 are his near
relatives. They are being proceeded against for having committed
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324 and 506 r/w.
Section 34 of the IPC.
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
submitted that the statement of the 2 nd respondent has been recorded
and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it
Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2019 4
involves no public interest.
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.
7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of
the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its
Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2019 5
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners
now pending as C.C.No.48 of 2019 on the file of the Temporary court
of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Neyyattinkara are
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2019 6
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.103/18 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND
P.A TO JUDGE