IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 1009 of 2019
CRIME NO. 532/2016 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 SATHEESH UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. N. UNNIKRISHNAN, SUKRITAM, ST. VINCENT COLANY P.O,
KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE D.T.
2 N. UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 73 YEARS,
S/O. SANKARAN NAIR,
SUKRITAM, ST. VINCENT COLANY P.O, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE,
KOZHIKODE D.T.
3 RAMA UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, SUKRITAM, ST. VINCENT COLANY P.O, KOZHIKODE,
KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE D.T.
4 SATHYAPAL UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. N. UNNIKRISHNAN, SUKRITAM, ST. VINCENT COLANY P.O,
KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE D.T.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 DEEPTHI,
AGED 39 YEARS,
D/O KNT NAMBIAR, HILL VIEW, R/AT NEILIKKATA P.O, BALLA, HOSDURG
TALUK, KASARAGOD, KERALA, INDIA.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.LOHITHAKSHAN CHATHADI KANNOTH
R1 BY SRI. T R RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2019, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1009 of 2019 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in
C.C.No.2187 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-I, Hosdurg. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd
respondent and petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. 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 seeking 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 2nd 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. 1009 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. 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
Crl.MC.No. 1009 of 2019 4
against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.2187 of 2017 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg are
quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JDUGE
DSV/27.2.19
Crl.MC.No. 1009 of 2019 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.
ANNEXURE A2 THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT.
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
