IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 7826 of 2018
CRIME NO. 2612/2017 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHIYAS HUSSAIN, AGED 40,
S/O. AHMED HUSSAIN, TANAL, KARICODU,
KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 004
3 BISMITHA SHIYAS,
W/O SHIYAS HUSSAIN, A.S.P.MANZIL AVANAVAN CHERRY
P.O,ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT
TANAL,KARICODU, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:7826/2018 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant in
Crime No.2612 of 2017 of the Kilikkollor Police Station. The
petitioner herein is the husband of the 3rd respondent and he is
being proceeded against for having committed offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 342 and 323 r/w. Section 34 of
the IPC.
3. The instant petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 3rd
respondent has filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish
to continue with the prosecution proceedings against the
petitioners.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained
instructions. He submitted that the statement of the 3 rd
respondent has been recorded and the State has no objection in
terminating the proceedings as it involves no public interest.
BA:7826/2018 3
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. 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.
BA:7826/2018 4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1
FIR in Crime No.2612 of 2017 of the Kilikkollor Police Station
and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are
quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
KRJ
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
BA:7826/2018 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH THE
FIS IN CRIME NO 2612/2017 OF THE
KILIKKOLLOR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL
