IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 17TH POUSHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 8511 of 2018
CMP 2291/2018 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANNUR
CRIME NO. 430/2018 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, Kannur
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O KUNHIRAMAN, KARIYIL HOUSE, KILIYALAM,
AGED 75 YEARS,
W/O KUNHIRAMAN, KARIYIL HOUSE, KILIYALAM,
3 SUSHEEALA K,
AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O KUNHIRAMAN, MACHERY HOUSE, KUTTIYATOOR, KANUUR.
AGED 49 YEARS,
W/O BHASKARAN, SREENILYAM, CHELERI, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 SHABINA P.P,
AGED 29 YEARS,
D/O M.ACHUTHAN, SHABINA NIVAS, P.O.KOLACHERI, KANNUR-
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
R2 BY SRI B JAYASURYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 8511 of 2018 2
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.430 of 2018 of the Mayyil Police Station. The 1 st petitioner is
the husband of the de facto complainant. The petitioners 2 to 4
are his near relatives. They are being proceeded against for
having committed offence punishable under Section 498A r/w.
3. The instant proceeding is initiated with a prayer to
quash the proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes.
The 1st respondent has filed an affidavit stating that she does not
wish to continue with the prosecution proceedings against the
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions.
He submits 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.
Crl.MC.No. 8511 of 2018 3
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
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. 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
In the result, this petition will stand allowed.
Crl.MC.No. 8511 of 2018 4
Annexure-A3 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto
against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1161 of 2018 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate Magistrate of First Class-II,
Kannur are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Crl.MC.No. 8511 of 2018 5
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP
2291/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 741 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, NO 11,KANNUR
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO
430/2018 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO 430/2018 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE 4 SWORN AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.12.2018 OF THE 1ST