SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sajith vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh