IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8189 of 2018
CC 235/2018 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI
CRIME NO. 127/2018 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O YOUSUF, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KAVANOOR.P.O,
AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031, THROUGH THE SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRITTY POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGED 25 YEARS,
D/O MUHAMMEDALI, KORALIYADAN HOUSE, MAYTHRA.PO,
THACHANA, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673639.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RANJITH
R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.P.NIDHIN KUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8189 of 2018 2
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.235 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Manjeri. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 2 nd respondent
and he is being proceeded against for having committed offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 498A 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 petitioner.
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. 8189 of 2018 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
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner
Crl.MC.No. 8189 of 2018 4
now pending as C.C. No.235 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Manjeri are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
DSV/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 8189 of 2018 5
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.127/2018 OF THE AREACODE POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED,22.10.2018.