IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 16TH POUSHA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.9269 OF 2019(G)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.1019/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II, HOSDRUG
CRIME NO.303/2019 OF NILESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT
ORCHA, ORCHA ROAD, KOTTAPPURAM, NEELESHWAR
VILLAGE, KOTTAPPURAM.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK,
RESPONDENT/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION,
3 SHANIDHA M.,
D/O.SHAFI.P., AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHANIDHA
QUARTERS, COLONY ROAD, THAIKKADAPPURAM,
P.O.THAIKKADAPPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.ABDUL KAREEM
SRI. AMJED ALI PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.9269 of 2019 2
Crl.M.C.No.9269 of 2019
This is a proceedings instituted under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure A2 final
report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto now
pending as C.C.No.1019 of 2019 on the files of the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class – II, Hosdurg against the
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the said case
and the case is one instituted at the instance of the third
respondent, the wife of the petitioner, under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is seen that the petitioner and the de facto
complainant have settled their disputes, and an affidavit to that
effect has been filed by the third respondent as Annexure A3.
4. The learned counsel for the third respondent
affirms that Annexure A3 is an affidavit sworn to by the defacto
complainant, and submits that the third respondent has no
Crl.M.C. No.9269 of 2019 3
objection in granting the relief sought for by the petitioner.
5. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in
Gian singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303,
Narinder singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and
SectionJitendra Raghuvanshi Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi
Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, I am of the view that this is an
appropriate case where this court has to invoke the jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
the proceedings against the petitioner.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A2
final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against
the petitioner pending as C.C.No.1019 of 2019 on the files of
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class – II, Hosdurg are quashed.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Crl.M.C. No.9269 of 2019 4
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR
DATED 22.8.2019 IN CRIME NO.303/2019
OF NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION,
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT DATED 31.10.2019 IN CRIME
NO.303/2019 OF NELESWARAM POLICE
STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.11.2019 SWORN
IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
PA TO JUDGE