IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 1039 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1175/2013 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEDUMANGAD
CRIME NO. 1100/2012 OF Venjaramoodu Police Station ,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:
1 SHIYAS
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.SHAMSUDEEN,
MANALIMUKKU PUTHE VEEDU,
MANICKAL MURI, NELLANADU VILLAGE,
VENJARAMOODU.P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695607.
2 SHAMSUDHEEN
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.ISMAYIL PILLAI,
‘MANALIMUKKU PUTHEN VEEDU’,
MANICKAL MURI, NELLANADU VILLAGE,
VENJARAMOODU.P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695607.
3 UBAIDA BEEVI
AGED 63 YEARS
D/O.SARA BEEVI,
‘MANALIMUKKU PUTHEN VEEDU’,
MANICKAL MURI, NELLANADU VILLAGE,
VENJARAMOODU.P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695607.
4 NIYAS
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.BASHER,
‘MANALIMUKKU PUTHE VEEDU’,
MANICKAL MURI, NELLANADU VILLAGE,
VENJARAMOODU.P.O, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695607.
BY ADV. SRI.R.B.RAJESH
Crl.MC.No. 1039 of 2019
2
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-31.
2 SHYRA RAPHY
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O.SHYLA BEEVI,
FORMERLY RESIDING AT ‘KHAIMA’,
MAVELIPURAM.P.O, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, AND
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
TAAWUN 5 BUILDING, AL WAHAD,
SHARJA, UAE.
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNY
HOLDER,
SMT.SHYLA BEEVI,
AGED 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RAFCO GARDENS, MUTHIYANKAVU,
MANNOORKONAM.P.O, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695541.
BY ADV. S.D.AJITH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. K K SHEEBA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1039 of 2019
3
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (‘the Code” for brevity).
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.
1175 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I,
Nedumangad. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband of the 2nd
respondent and petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. They are
being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable
under Section 498A 323 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 2nd
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 2 nd respondent has been
recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the
proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 1039 of 2019
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. 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.
Crl.MC.No. 1039 of 2019
5
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-1 final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners
now pending as C.C.No.1175 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
AVS
Crl.MC.No. 1039 of 2019
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.1100/12 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION
FILE OF J.F.M.C.-1, NEDUMANGAD).
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUSCAT
COURT.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
ENTERED AT MEDIATION CENTER DATED
27.11.2018.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED 27/11/2018.
ANNEXURE 5 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ATTESTED BY THE CONSULATE
GENERAL OF INDIA, DUBAI(U.A.E) DATED
20/12/2018.
RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO
JUDGE
