SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Syam Prasad vs State Of Kerala on 22 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 7338 of 2018

CC 1418/2015 of J.M.F.C., OTTAPPALAM

CRIME NO. 873/2014 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SYAM PRASAD,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.RAMANKUTTY,
THEKKEPURAKAL VEEDU, BEHIND THE TOURIST BUNGALOW,
THOTTAKARA P.O.,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM – 682 031

2 SAJITHA P.S.,
AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.SUKUMARAN,
PUTHUVAYIL VEEDU, POMBRA DESOM,
KARIMPUZHA VILLAGE,
OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD-679 513

BY ADV. SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN K.B.

SRI. AMJAD ALI – SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7338 of 2018 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 petitioner.

2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Their

marriage was solemnized on 8.4.2012 and they were living together.

In the course of their connubial relationship, serious disputes

cropped up. The 2nd respondent specifically alleges that the

petitioner is guilty of culpable matrimonial cruelty. This finally led to

the institution of criminal proceedings at the instance of the 2 nd

respondent. FIR was registered and after investigation, final report

was laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is now pending

as C.C.No.1418 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class – Ottapalam. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner is accused of

having committed offence punishable under Sections 498A of the

Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family members,

the parties have decided to put an end to their discord and have

decided to part ways. It is urged that the dispute is purely private in
Crl.MC.No. 7338 of 2018 3

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

attention of this Court to the 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

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
Crl.MC.No. 7338 of 2018 4

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.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioner now pending as C.C.No.1418 of 2015 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 7338 of 2018 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND
COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 873/2014, OF
OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN
CRIME NO. 873/2014 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE
STATION/C.C. NO. 1418/2015, JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESSES/MEMORANDUM
OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE DAIRY/FINAL
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 873/2014, OF
OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 4/10/2018 SWORN TO AND
EXECUTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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