SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sameer K.P vs Nausheena on 8 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6323 of 2018

L.P.C 53/2007 IN CC 321/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANNUR

CRIME NO. 245/2006 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SAMEER K.P.
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O MOOSA T.K ,
RESIDING AT MOORSAF HOUSE, PUTHIYATHERU P.O,
CHIRAKKAL,
KANNUR.

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT STATE:

1 NAUSHEENA
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O EBRAHIM.K,
RESIDING AT NASEEMAS, P.O KAPPAD,
THILANNUR,
CHELORA, KANNUR-670006
NOW RESIDING AT P.B NO. 92050,
U.A.E, DUBAI.

2 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6323 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 petitioner.

2. The 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The

marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was

solemnized on 30.03.2003. In the course of their connubial

relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 1 st respondent

specifically alleges that the petitioner is guilty of culpable matrimonial

cruelty. This finally led to the institution of criminal proceedings at the

instance of the 1st respondent. FIR was registered and after

investigation, final report was laid before the learned Magistrate and

the case is now pending as C.C.No.321 of 2006 on the files of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class – II, Kannur. In the aforesaid case, the

petitioner is accused of having committed offence punishable under

Sections 498A, 420 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties

have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to live in
Crl.MC.No. 6323 of 2018 3

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

learned counsel for the 1st respondent invited the attention of this

Court to the affidavit filed by 1 st 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 1st 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 1 st 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 it is the duty of the
Crl.MC.No. 6323 of 2018 4

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.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A3

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner

now pending as L.P.C 53/2007 in C.C.No.321 of 2006 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class – II, Kannur are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 6323 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT
NO.II, KANNUR.

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME
NO.245/2006 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
245/2006 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION
FILED BEFORE THE J.F.C.M. COURT NO.II,
KANNUR.

ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/07/2018 SWORN BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh