IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8313 of 2018
IN CC NO.311/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR
CRIME NO.1370/2011 OF Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 2:
1 SAJITH, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.SUGUNAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAYALIL VEEDU,
M.C.PURAM, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM.
2 SARASWATHY, AGED 57 YEARS,
D/O.SUMATHI, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAYALIL VEEDU,
M.C.PURAM, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM.
3 SANGEETHA, AGED 33 YEARS,
D/O.SARASWATHY, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAYALIL VEEDU,
M.C.PURAM, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM.
4 SREEKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS,
H/O.SANGEETHA, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAYALIL VEEDU,
M.C.PURAM, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR
SRI.NOBEL RAJU
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031, REPRESENTING THE SHO,
CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691572.
2 JYOTHI VISALAN, AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O.KRISHNAVENI, RESIDING AT K.A.V.PUSHPALAYAM,
KEDAKULAM DESAM, AYIRUR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN- 695310.
P.P – SRI. BREEZ
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8313 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.311 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court
(Temporary), Paravoor. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de
facto complainant and petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. They
are being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners subjected
the 2nd respondent to cruelty and harassment demanding dowry. The
instant petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings on the
ground of settlement of all disputes.
4. 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 and have parted ways. It is
urged that the dispute is purely private in nature.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, referred to
Annexure-A3 order of this Court and submitted that they had
Crl.MC.No. 8313 of 2018
3
approached this Court earlier seeking to quash the proceedings.
However, holding that the offences are non-compoundable, the
petition was dismissed. Reference is also placed on Annexure-A4
settlement arrived at between the parties and it is submitted that no
purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings.
6. 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.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the materials on record.
8. 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
Crl.MC.No. 8313 of 2018
4
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.
9. 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-A2 final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners
now pending as C.C.No. 311 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Paravoor, Kollam are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
avs
Crl.MC.No. 8313 of 2018
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1370/2011 OF
CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.311/2016 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (TEMPORARY),
PARAVOOR, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CRL.M.C.NO.133/2012 OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 30.07.2012.
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2011.
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
