IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8105 of 2018
IN CC NO.149/2017 ON THE FILES OF J.M.F.C., PAYYANNUR
CRIME NO. 553/2016 OF Payyannur Police Station, Kannur
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 2, 3, 4:
1 SHAFIQ PALAKKODAN, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, PALAKKODAN HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 SAREENA PALAKKODAN, AGED 42 YEARS
D/O.MUHAMMED, PALAKKODAN HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 JABBAR, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.MAMMU, KAKKADVALAPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
4 SHABEER PALAKKODAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED, PALAKKODAN HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
2 FAYIZA M.K.,
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O.MOIDEEN, MAVINTEKEEZHIL HOUSE,
MATTOOL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2018, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC:8105/18 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.149 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Payyannur. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband of the 2 nd
respondent and the petitioners 2 to 4 are the relatives of the 1 st
petitioner. They are being proceeded against for having committed
offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The instant 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:8105/18 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 against the
Crl.MC:8105/18 4
petitioners now pending as C.C.No.149 of 2017 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
PS
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC:8105/18 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED
26/12/2016.
ANNEXURE-A2 AN AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINAL FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 23/8/2018.
