SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinai Prathap Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 5830 of 2018

CC NO.929/2017 of ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRIVANDRUM

CRIME NO. 2080/2016 OF MECICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 VINAI PRATHAP PILLAI, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O. PRATHAP PILLAI, THUMBIKATTIL HOUSE, ULOOR,
BLRA-15, BRIDGE LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 011

2 PRATHAP PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, THUMBIKATTIL HOUSE, ULOOR,
BLRA-15, BRIDGE LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 011

3 MEENA PRATHAP, AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O. PRATHAP PILLAI, THUMBIKATTIL HOUSE, ULOOR,
BLRA-15, BRIDGE LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 011

BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
P. PARVATHY
SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
VISHNU PRATHAP PILLAI

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 011

3 VINEETHA MALLIKA NAIR, AGED 27 YEARS,
D/O. SREEKUMAR AND MALLIKA SREEKUMAR,
1/2 DUCKSWORTH, S.I. PAPALI ENCLAVE, PAPALI ROAD,
PADAMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI – 682 030.
Crl.MC.No. 5830 of 2018 2

BY ADVS.
A.ANILKUMAR (A – 959)
SMT.R.RANJINI

SMT. MAYA M. N. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5830 of 2018 3

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).

2. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.

No.929 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 3rd

respondent and petitioners 2 3 are his parents. They are being

proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under

Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings

on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 3rd respondent has

filed an affidavit, wherein she has stated that she does not wish to

continue with the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He

submitted that the statement of the 3rd respondent has been recorded

and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it

involves no public interest.

Crl.MC.No. 5830 of 2018 4

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 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.

Crl.MC.No. 5830 of 2018 5

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

report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.929 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 5830 of 2018 6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 21.11.2016.

ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
28.04.2017.

ANNEXURE III : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 01.09.2018.

ANNEXURE IV : TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION UNDER 13B
OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT DATED 01.09.2018.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

NIL

Leave a Reply

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

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