High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 02 KL CK 0091

N.S. SARATHKUMAR vs S.PARVATHY

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 February 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
366 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

44 paragraphs · 381 words

1.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.On the basis of an FIR lodged by the 1st respondent, who

is the wife of the 1st petitioner, Crime No.1419 of 2012 of

the Palarivattom Police Station was registered and

investigation was taken up for offences punishable under

Sections 406, 420, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioners 2 and 3 are the near relatives of the 1st

petitioner.

3.It is submitted that the Crime was registered due to

temperamental differences and minor skirmishes which

usually occur between husband and wife in the course of

their matrimonial relationship. According to the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, they have approached

the Family Court, Ernakulam and have filed a petition

seeking divorce by mutual consent which has been

allowed. An affidavit sworn to by the victim is also relied

on by the parties to contend that the wife is desirous of

bringing to an end the criminal prosecution initiated

against the petitioners.

4.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions

has submitted that the statement of the 1st respondent

has been recorded and she has stated in unequivocal

terms that the settlement arrived at is genuine.

5.I have considered the submissions.

6.It is evident from the materials produced that the parties

have amicably resolved their disputes and have decided to

part ways. The continuance of the criminal proceedings

will only serve the purpose of causing hardship to the

parties.

7.It is by now settled 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, there is no reason why this Court

should 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 dispute is

clearly private and no public interest is involved.

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

I FIR in Crime No.1419 of 2012 of Palarivattom Police

Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

petitioners are quashed.