IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6845 of 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1720/2017 of J.M.F.C.,MALAPPURAM

CRIME NO. 335/2017 OF Kondotty Police Station , Malappuram

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 SHERIL, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.VEERANKUTTY, DEVASONPARAMBIL (H),
PUTHUPADAM, EKARAPPADY, KONDOTTY,
MALAPPURAM, (DIST), PIN 673638.

2 VEERANKUTTY, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS,
DEVASONPARAMBIL(H), PUTHUPADAM, EKARAPPADY, KONDOTTY,
MALAPURAM (DIST), PIN-673638.

3 KHADEEJA, W/O.VEERANKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS,
DEVASONPARAMBIL(H), PUTHUPADAM, EKARAPPADY,
KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM(DIST), PIN-673638.

BY ADVS.SRI.AASHIQUE AKTHAR HAJJIGOTHI
SMT.KEERTHANA J. RAMESH

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

2 UMMUHABIBA, D/O.ABDUL SALAM,
AGED 26 YEARS, SHAMSU MANZIL, PULIKKATHODI,
CHIRAYIL PO, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM, PIN 673638.

BY ADVS. SMT.SANJANA SARA VARGHESE ANNIE
SMT.SANDHYA C.NAIR

R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI T R RENJITH

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6845 of 2018 2

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 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The

petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1 st petitioner. The

marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was

solemnized on 03.09.2016. In the course of their connubial

relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 2 nd respondent

specifically alleges that the petitioners are guilty of culpable

matrimonial cruelty. This finally led to the institution of criminal

proceedings at the instance of the 2 nd respondent. FIR was

registered and after investigation, final report was laid before the

learned Magistrate and the case is now pending as C.C.No.1720 of

2017 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Malappuram. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners are accused of
Crl.MC.No. 6845 of 2018 3

having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406,

324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family members,

the parties have decided to put an end to their discord and have

decided to live in peace. It is urged that the dispute is purely

private in nature. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent,

invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by her and

asserts that the disputes inter se have been settled and the

continuance of criminal proceedings will only result in gross

inconvenience and hardship. It is submitted that the 2 nd

respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.

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.

Crl.MC.No. 6845 of 2018 4

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 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.

Crl.MC.No. 6845 of 2018 5

7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of

the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking

its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash

the proceedings.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final

report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.1720 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Malappuram are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 6845 of 2018 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
CC.NO.1720/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM.

ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT DTD: 31/08/2018 SWORN BY 2ND
RESPONDENT.