IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 6917 of 2018
AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.2247/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY
CRIME NO.427/2017 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/:
1 SUDHEESH KRISHNAPRABHA,
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PUTHALATH PARAMBU HOUSE,
CHELANNOOR, KANNAMKARA, KOZHIKODE
2 RAMACHANDRAN KRISHNAPRABHA,
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O CHANDU, PUTHALATH PARAMBU HOUSE, CHELANNOOR,
KANNAMKARA, KOZHIKODE
3 VALSALA CHERUVATH, AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O RAMACHANDRAN, PUTHALATH PARAMBU HOUSE,
CHELANNOOR, KANNAMKARA, KOZHIKODE
BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2 VEENA KAYYAMTHALA, AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O BABU, KAYYAMTHALA HOUSE, KARIYAD SOUTH P.O.,
THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-673316.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ARAVIND
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. T R RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC.6917/18 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (‘the Code” for brevity) with a prayer to quash the
proceedings pending against the petitioners.
2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1 st petitioner. The
petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1 st petitioner. The marriage
between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on
27.10.2013. In the course of their connubial relationship, serious
disputes cropped up. The 2nd respondent specifically alleges that the
petitioners are guilty of culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally led
to the institution of criminal proceedings at the instance of the 2 nd
respondent. Annexure-1 FIR was registered and after investigation
final report was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is
now pending as C.C.No.2247 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Thalassery. In the aforesaid case, the
petitioners are accused of having committed offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family members,
CRL.MC.6917/18 3
the parties have decided to put an end to their discord and have
decided to go separate ways. It is urged that the dispute is purely
private in nature. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd
respondent, invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-2
affidavit filed by her and asserts that the disputes inter se have been
settled and the continuance of criminal proceedings will only result
in gross inconvenience and hardship. It is submitted that the 2 nd
respondent has no objection in allowing the prayer sought for.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions
has submitted that the statement of the 2nd respondent has been
recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the
settlement arrived at is genuine.
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
CRL.MC.6917/18 4
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 extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the proceedings.
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.2247 of 2017 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thalassery are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
krj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
CRL.MC.6917/18 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.2247/2017 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERI.
ANNEXURE 2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:- NIL