SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sulfikker vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 300 of 2019

CC 137/2015 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD

CRIME NO. 652/2015 OF Palakkad Town South Police Station, Palakkad

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

1 SULFIKKER, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, NOOR MAHAL, PALLATHERI,
PALAKKAD.

2 ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O.SYED MOHAMMED, NOOR MAHAL, PALLATHERI,
PALAKKAD.

3 NOORJAHAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, NOOR MAHAL, PALLATHERI,
PALAKKAD.

BY ADVS.
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI – 682 031.

2 JISMI, AGED 27 YEARS,
W/O.SULFIKKER, RESIDING AT JISMAYA,
NOORANI (P.O.), PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 004.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSE
R1 BY SRI AMJAD ALI, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 300 of 2019 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. Alleging

that the petitioners subjected the 2 nd respondent to matrimonial

cruelty, a complaint was lodged, based on which Crime No.652 of

2015 was registered at the Town South Police Station. On

completion of investigation, final report was laid and the case is

now pending as C.C.No.137 of 2015 on the files of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners

are charged of having committed offence punishable under

Sections 498A , 406, 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family

members, the parties have decided to put an end to their discord.

It is urged that the dispute is purely private in nature.

4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, invited the

attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by her and asserts that
Crl.MC.No. 300 of 2019 3

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 2nd respondent has no objection

in allowing the prayer sought for.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions

has submitted that the statement of the 2 nd respondent has been

recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the

settlement arrived at is genuine.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have

perused the materials on record.

7. 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
Crl.MC.No. 300 of 2019 4

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.

8. 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.

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

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners now pending as C.C.No.137 of 2015 on the files of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakkad are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE

DSV/15.2.19
Crl.MC.No. 300 of 2019 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.137/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD.

ANNEXURE B ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/12/2018.

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh