SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Varghese Jibin vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2018

CC 1071/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
CHERTHALA

CRIME NO. 256/2014 OF AROOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:

1 VARGHESE JIBIN,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O. EESHY KUTTY,
KAYITHARA VEEDU, NEAR PALLIYARAKKAVU TEMPLE,
2ND WARD, AROOR PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

2 PHILOMINA,
AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O.EESHY KUTTY,
KAYITHARA VEEDU,
NEAR PALLIYARAKKAVU TEMPLE,
2ND WARD, AROOR PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

3 EESHY KUTTY,
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.AUGUSTINE,
KAYITHARA VEEDU,
NEAR PALLIYARAKKAVU TEMPLE,
2ND WARD,
AROOR PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

4 AUGUSTINE JOBY,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.EESHY KUTTY,
KAYITHARA VEEDU,
NEAR PALLIYARAKKAVU TEMPLE,
2ND WARD, AROOR PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2018 2

5 NINCY JOBY @ AMALA,
AGED 27 YEARS,
W/O.AUGUSTINE JOBY,
KAYITHARA VEEDU,
NEAR PALLIYARAKKAVU TEMPLE,
2ND WARD, AROOR PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
PREMCHAND R.NAIR
SMT.C.A.RAKHI ANTONY
SRI.GEORGE BRISTON
SRI.V.P.PRASANTH

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
AROOR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI – 31.

2 ASWATHY,
AGED 23 YEARS,
D/O.JIJI VINOD,
CHERUKATTUPARAMBIL,
DLB ROAD, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE,
PALLURUTHY, KOCHI – 682 006.

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R.RENJITH
R2 BY ADV. T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2018 3

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 1st petitioner. The

petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the near relatives of the 1 st petitioner. The

marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was

solemnized on 11.08.2011. In the course of their connubial

relationship, serious disputes cropped up. The 2 nd respondent

specifically alleged 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-A FIR

was registered and after investigation, final report was laid before

the learned Magistrate and the case is now pending as C.C.No.1071

of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,

Cherthala. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners are accused of

having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A

and 506(i) 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, the parties
Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2018 4

have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to live

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

learned counsel appearing for the 2nd 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
Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2018 5

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.

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.

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

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1071 of 2016 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
DSV/-

Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2018 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.256/2014
DTD.21/3/2014 REGISTERED BY AROOR POLICE.

ANNEXURE B THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
DTD.30/6/2014 WHICH IS PRESENTLY NUMBERED
AS CC NO.1071/2016 ON THE FILES OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II,
CHERTHALA.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION OP
NO.1899 OF 2018 DATED 29/08/2018 PENDING
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

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 © 2018 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