SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sudheer 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. 179 of 2019

CC 468/2013 of J.M.F.C.-II,ATTINGAL

CRIME NO. 906/2012 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

1 SUDHEER
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.SALIM, SUDHEER MANZIL, DUDANA COLONY,
PATATHIL MURIYIL, MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2 RAMLA,
AGED 53 YEARS
D/O.BEEVIKUNJU, SUDHEER MANZIL, DUDANA COLONY,
PATATHIL MURIYIL, MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

3 SUDHEENA
AGED 30 YEARS
D/O.RAMLA, SUDHEER MANZIL, DUDANA COLONY, PATATHIL
MURIYIL, MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 SABITHA,
AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.NUSAIBA BEEVI, MUNDACHIRA VEEDU,
KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.

BY ADV. CHANDRA BABU

SRI T R RENJITH 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. 179 of 2019 2

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.468 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,

Attingal. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2 nd respondent and

the petitioners 2 and 3 are his near relatives. They are being

proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under

Section 498A 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 A2 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 2nd respondent has been recorded

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

involves no public interest.

Crl.MC.No. 179 of 2019 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.

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. 179 of 2019 4

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

report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.468 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court -II, Attingal are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 179 of 2019 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CC.468/2013 PENDING BEFORE THE JFMC-II,
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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