SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Saneesh Xavier vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation