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
