SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vishnu R.J. vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 655 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2070/2018 of ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

CRIME NO.2213/2016 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

1 VISHNU R.J., AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O RAGHU V.R., TC.14/1579(1) PRA90, VAYAL VARAM,
KADAKAL LANE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 RAGHU V.R.,
TC.14/1579(1) PRA90, VAYAL VARAM, KADAKAL LANE,
KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3 JOY, W/O.RAGHU V.R.,
TC.14/1579(1) PRA90, VAYAL VARAM, KADAKAL LANE,
KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

4 LEKSHMI, D/O JOY,
TC.14/1579(1) PRA90, VAYAL VARAM, KADAKAL LANE,
KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-682031.

2 RESHMI,
D/O SHYLAJA, TC.7/1895, HOUSE NO.C-3,
ANASWARA LANE, SHREECHITHRA NAGAR, PANGODE,
THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012.
Crl.MC.No. 655 of 2019

2

BY ADV. SRI.S.K.VINOD
SRI. T. R. RENJITH PP.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 655 of 2019

3

ORDER

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

Procedure (‘the Code” for brevity).

2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.

2070 of 2018 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband of the

2nd respondent. The petitioners 2 to 4 are his near relatives. They are

being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable

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

3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners subjected

the 2nd respondent to matrimonial cruelty demanding dowry.

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

on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 2nd respondent has

filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish to continue with the

prosecution proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He

submitted that the statement of the 2 nd respondent has been recorded
Crl.MC.No. 655 of 2019

4

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

involves no public interest.

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 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
Crl.MC.No. 655 of 2019

5

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-B final

report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

now pending as C.C.No.2070 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

avs
Crl.MC.No. 655 of 2019

6

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND COMPLAINT IN
CRIME NO.2213/2019 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE
POLICE STATION DATED 14.12.2016

ANNEXURE B A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.2213/2016 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR
OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED
5.12.2018

RESPONDENT’S/S 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