SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shemeer vs Nil on 15 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6692 of 2018

CC 302/2013 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM

CRIME NO. 242/2012 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 SHEMEER
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.SALIM, SHEMEER MANZIL, KULANGARA CHERRY,
CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691583.

2 SALIM H,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.HAMSATH KOYA, SHEMEER MANZIL,
KULANGARA CHERRY, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583.

3 NARIYATH,
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O.SALIYAMMA, SHEMEER MANZIL,
KULANGARA CHERRY, CHAVARA,
KOLLAM-691583.

4 SHAMILA,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O. MUJEEB, NELLIVILA THEKKATHIL VEEDU,
BHARANIKAVU MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-690521.

BY ADVS.
SRI.S.ABHILASH
KUM.KAVYA SOMAN

RESPONDENT/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT

1 STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION,
Crl.MC.No. 6692 of 2018

2

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.

2 SINI, D/O.ABDUL BASHEER
AGED 26 YEARS, SINI MANZIL, ITHIKKARA CHERRY,
ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTIYAM P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT 691571.

BY ADVS
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
SRI T R RENJITH-PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6692 of 2018

3

ORDER

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 petitioners.

2. The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C No.302 of 2013

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam involving

offences punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

The de facto complainant, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent, is the

wife of the 1st petitioner herein and petitioners 2 to 4 are the near

relatives of the 1st petitioner. In the course of their matrimonial

relationship, disputes occurred and the parties fell apart. Criminal

prosecution was initiated alleging matrimonial cruelty. However, in the

course of proceedings, with the help and intervention of family

members and relatives, the parties have settled their differences and

they are living in peace and harmony. It is in the above scenario that

this petition is filed to quash the proceedings.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners as well as the party respondent that the parties have
Crl.MC.No. 6692 of 2018

4

parted ways and the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of

divorce. All disputes have been settled amicably and in that view of

the matter, the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted

exercise. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit, wherein she has

stated that she has no grievance against the petitioners.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has

submitted that the statement of the 2nd respondent has been recorded

and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the settlement arrived at

is genuine.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced.

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
Crl.MC.No. 6692 of 2018

5

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.

7. The dispute is clearly private and continuance of proceedings

will only inure to cause inconvenience and hardship to the parties.

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-A2 final

report and all proceddings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.302 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE

IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 6692 of 2018

6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 THE COPY OF FIR WITH PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN
CRIME NO.242/2012 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE
STATION.

ANNEXURE 2 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 242/2012
OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE 3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

REGARDING THE COMPROMISE DATED 29.09.2018.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

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