IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 985 of 2019
CC 348/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
CRIME NO. 171/2017 OF Thirunelly Police Station, Wayanad
YAJAS, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. SAYYID KHADEER, KAYAL MADATHIL, PUTHEN
PEEDIYEKKAL, NARIKKAL, THOLPETTY P.O, WAYANADU.
BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT STATE:
1 RASHIDA.K.P., AGED 35 YEARS,
W/O. YAJAS, KAYAL MADATHIL, PUTHEN PEEDIYEKKAL,
NARIKKAL, THOLPETTY P.O, WAYANADU.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE S.I OF POLICE,
THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH
R2 BY SRI. T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 985 of 2019 2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
2. The 1st respondent is the de facto complainant in
C.C.No.348 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class-II, Mananthawady. The petitioner herein is the husband of
the 1st respondent and he is being proceeded against for having
committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 498A and
506(i) of the IPC.
3. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the
proceedings on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 1st
respondent has filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish to
continue with the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions.
He submits that the statement of the 1 st respondent has been
recorded and the State has no objection in terminating the
proceedings as it involves no public interest.
Crl.MC.No. 985 of 2019 3
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. 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. 985 of 2019 4
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1
final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the
petitioner now pending as C.C.No.348 of 2017 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Mananthawady, are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No. 985 of 2019 5
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 171/2017 THIRUNELLI POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 14-01-2019 SWORN TO BY THE