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