IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 119 of 2019
CC NO.28/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -II, HOSDRUG
CRIME NO. 696/2017 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 YOGESH N., AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.UPENDRAN, CHANDRAPURAM HOUSE,
PANAYAL VILLAGE, PANAYAL P.O., KASARAGOD.
2 SWETHA P.P., AGED 26 YEARS,
W/O.YOGESH N., CHANDRAPURAM HOUSE,
PANAYAL VILLAGE, PANAYAL P.O., KASARAGOD.
BY ADVS.
SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.K.SHEEBA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 119 of 2019 2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (“the Code” for brevity).
2. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband of the 2 nd petitioner,
who is the de facto complainant. Alleging that the 1 st petitioner
subjected his wife to matrimonial cruelty, a complaint was lodged,
based on which Crime No.696 of 2017 was registered at the Bekal
Police Station. On completion of investigation, final report was laid
before the learned Magistrate and the case is now pending as
C.C.No.28 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-
II, Hosdurg. In the said case, the 1 st petitioner is facing prosecution
under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings
on the ground of settlement of all disputes. The 2nd petitioner has filed
Annexure-A2 affidavit stating that she does not wish to continue with
the prosecution proceedings against the 1st petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has obtained instructions. He
submitted that the statement of the 2 nd petitioner has been recorded
Crl.MC.No. 119 of 2019 3
and the State has no objection in terminating the proceedings as it
involves no public interest.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the materials on record.
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.
Crl.MC.No. 119 of 2019 4
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-A1 final
report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the 1 st petitioner
now pending as C.C.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court -II, Hosdurg are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No. 119 of 2019 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.696/2017 OF BEKKAL POLICE STATION DATED
26.11.2017.
ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
DATED 13.11.2018.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL
