IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6569 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 583/2018 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG
CRIME NO. 566/2012 OF VELLARIKUNDU POLICE STATION , KASARGOD
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SULAIMAN MH, RESIDING AT KAEATT,
KANAKAPALLY, PARAPPA VILLAGE,
SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA – 682031.
AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN,
RESIDING AT MUTTAMKADAVU HOUSE,
KONNAKKADU, MALOM VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 671533.
BY ADV. SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI
SRI C K PRASAD PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6569 of 2018 2
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 petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.583 of 2018 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Hosdurg. The
aforesaid case has originated from Crime No.566 of 2012 registered
at the Vellarikundu Police Station alleging offences punishable
under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. Initially, the investigation was conducted and final report
was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate
took cognizance and the case was numbered as CC No.2220 of
2013. In the meanwhile, entire disputes were settled amicably.
Based on the settlement, the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6, who were
available, were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner,
who was working abroad, was not available and hence, the case
against him was split up and renumbered as CC No.583 of 2018.
Crl.MC.No. 6569 of 2018 3
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the entire disputes have been resolved and the
parties have agreed to part ways. He has referred to Annexure-3
affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant, the 2 nd respondent
herein, to canvass his prayer for quashing the proceedings.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. I have gone through Annexure-2 final report as well as
judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. It is borne out
from the judgment that none of the prosecution witnesses had
deposed in tune with the prosecution case. Furthermore, the de
facto complainant has filed an affidavit stating that she has no
7. 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
Crl.MC.No. 6569 of 2018 4
the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal
8. I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be
served by directing the petitioner to face the trial at this stage. It
can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious
judicial time, which can be used for more productive work. This
Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section
482 of the Code.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-2 final report
and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now
pending as C.C.No.583 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-II, Hosdurg are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Crl.MC.No. 6569 of 2018 5
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO 566/2012 OF
VELLARIKUNDU POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 566/2012 OF VELLARIKUNDU POLICE
ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.7.2018 SWORN BY 2ND