SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sreemanu vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 156 of 2019

C.C.NO.694/18 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VIII,
NEYYATTINKARA

CRIME NO.2438/2017 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

1 SREEMANU, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O. MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, 17-91, KAAVASADHALAM,
EDAVILAKATHU KEEZHEY PUTHEN VEEDU, KULASEKHARAM,
KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU.

2 MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, 17-91, KAAVASADHALAM ,
EDAVILAKATHU KEEZHEY PUTHEN VEEDU, KULASEKHARAM,
KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU.

3 ANANDA KUMARI AMMA, AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O. MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, 17-91, KAAVASADHALAM,
EDAVILAKATHU KEEZHEY PUTHEN VEEDU, KULASEKHARAM,
KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU.

BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
THROUGH S.I. OF POLICE, NEMOM-682 031

2 ASWATHY S. NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS
D/O GIRIJA KUMARI AMMA, 49/354-1, HOMEO COLLEGE ,
ARUNODHYAM, KOLIYAKODE,NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
NOW RESIDING AT SALINI NIVAS, EAITHUKONADANKANI,
NADOORKOLLA, AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 122
Crl.MC.No. 156 of 2019 2

BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL (PADINJAREKOTA)

SRI. B. JAYASURYA PP.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 156 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.694 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-

VIII, Neyyattinkara. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto

complainant and petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents. They are being

proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under

Sections 420, 498A 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 2nd

respondent has filed Annexure-3 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. 156 of 2019 4

5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have

perused the materials on record.

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.

7. 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. 156 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.694 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Neyyattinkara are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 156 of 2019 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT

ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT.

ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS’ 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 © 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