SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sree Ranjan vs Aishwrya on 18 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 631 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC NO.426/2017 of FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM

CRIME NO. 1121/2017 OF CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS:

1 SREE RANJAN, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O. NARAYANAN POTTY, AMARAVATHY MADAM,
MARUTHURKULANGAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2 REMANI ANTHARJANAM, AGED 51 YEARS,
W/O. NARAYANAN POTTY, AMARAVATHY MADAM,
MARUTHURKULANGAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

3 ASHA, AGED 31 YEARS,
W/O. SREEKUMAR,AMARAVATHY MADAM, MARUTHURKULANGAR,
KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

4 SREEKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.NARAYANAN POTTY, AMARAVATHY MADAM,
MARUTHURKULANGAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

5 NARAYANAN POTTY, AGED 57 YEARS,
AMARAVATHY MADAM, MARUTHURKULANGAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY
TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYARAJ

RESPONDENTS:

1 AISHWRYA, AGED 30 YEARS
V-A2, DREAM FLOWER, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE,
CHERANELLORE, ERNAKULAM CITY-682 024.

2 THE STATE OF KERALA.
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANELLORE,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
Crl.MC.No. 631 of 2019

2

ERNAKULAM-682 031

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T. R. RENJITH

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 631 of 2019

3

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (‘the Code” for brevity).

2. The 1st respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime No.

1121/2017 of the Cheranelloor Police Station. The 1st petitioner is the

husband and the petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. They are

being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable

under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. According to the prosecution, the petitioners subjected the

1st respondent to ill-treatment and cruelty demanding dowry

4. 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 part

ways. Reliance is placed on Annexure-II compromise petition filed

before the Family Court and Annexure-III affidavit sown to by the 1 st

respondent to substantiate the said contention. It is urged that the

dispute is purely private in nature.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent referring to the

affidavit sworn to by the 1st respondent asserts that the disputes inter
Crl.MC.No. 631 of 2019

4

se have been settled and the continuance of criminal proceedings will

only result in gross inconvenience and hardship. It is submitted that

the 1st respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He

submitted that the statement of the 1 st respondent has been recorded

and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it

involves no public interest.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone

through the materials on record.

8. 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
Crl.MC.No. 631 of 2019

5

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.

9. 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.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1

FIR in Crime No.1121 of 2017 registered at the Cheranelloor Police

Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto pending against the

petitioners are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

avs
Crl.MC.No. 631 of 2019

6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.

1121/2017 OF CHERANELLORE POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, AT
ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE III A DETAILED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
(DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) IN SUPPORT OF THIS
CRL.M.C.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

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 © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh