SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shibin vs State Of Kerala on 16 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 6593 of 2018

CRIME NO. 317/2018 OF VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

1 SHIBIN, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O. DHARMADAS, DAS COTTAGE,
MANGARATH PUTHEN VEEDU, CHITTAZHA WARD,
KARAKULAM PANCHAYAT,
NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2 SIBIN, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. DHARMADAS, DAS COTTAGE,
MANGARATH PUTHEN VEEDU, CHITTAZHA WARD,
KARAKULAM PANCHAYAT,
NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3 SHEELAKUMARI, AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. DHARMADAS, DAS COTTAGE, MANGARATH PUTHEN VEEDU,
CHITTAZHA WARD, KARAKULAM PANCHAYAT, NEDUMANGADU
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

4 DHARMADAS, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.SELVANOSE, DAS COTTAGE, MANGARATH PUTHEN VEEDU,
CHITTAZHA WARD, KARAKULAM PANCHAYAT,
NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI – 682 031

2 AINGEL
D/O. EBANEEZER, AGED 24 YEARS,
YOGESH BHAVAN, CHEMBAMAN, KATTAKKAD, PIRAYIL,
PEYADU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.
Crl.MC.No. 6593 of 2018 2

BY ADV. SRI.S.K.VINOD

SRI C K PRASAD PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6593 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 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1 st petitioner. The

petitioners 2 to 4 are the family members. The marriage between

them was solemnized on 17.03.2018. 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 as Crime No.317 of 2018 of the Vattappara Police Station

alleging offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 376 r/w

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
Crl.MC.No. 6593 of 2018 4

private in nature. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd

respondent, invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit,

Annexure-C, 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

2nd 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.

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
Crl.MC.No. 6593 of 2018 5

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.

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

FIR in Crime No.317 of 2018 of Vattappara Police Station and all

proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 6593 of 2018 6

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A ATTESTED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.317/2018
DATED 24.3.2018 OF VATTAPPARA POLICE
STATION.

ANNEXURE B COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMANGADU,
DATED 23.3.2018.

ANNEXURE C ATTESTED COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY
PUBLIC DATED 25.9.2018.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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