IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
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
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
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
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
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
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.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 6845 of 2018 6
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