SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shiyas vs State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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