IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 865 of 2019
CC NO.1274/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, PAYYANNUR
CRIME NO. 543/2016 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.12:
1 SANEESH XAVIER, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O. XAVIER, KANNANVELIL HOUSE, NATTAKALLU,
WEST ELERI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 533
2 XAVIER KANNANVELI, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. VARKI, KANNANVELIL HOUSE, NATTAKALLU,
WEST ELERI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 533
BY ADVS.
SRI.TITUS MANI
SRI.BINNY THOMAS
SRI.P.A.JACOB
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
2 JIJI GEORGE, AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O. GEORGE, VANDIPURAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMBADAVU,
KARIPAL P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 581
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T. R. RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 865 of 2019
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.
1274 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Payyannur. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and
the 2nd petitioner is his mother. They are being proceeded against for
having committed offence punishable under Section 498A 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
involves no public interest.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
Crl.MC.No. 865 of 2019
3
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
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners
Crl.MC.No. 865 of 2019
4
now pending as C.C.No.1274 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
avs
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 865 of 2019
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED
17.08.2016
ANNEXURE A2 AN AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINAL FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2018
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
