Haridasan vs State Of Kerala And Anr

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1217/2020 registered at the Puthencruze Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 325

and 498-A of IPC. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is the petitioner’s wife and is arrayed as the 2nd

respondent herein. Annexure-A2 affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the matrimonial dispute, which had compelled her to submit

the complaint leading to registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and hence, she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the

contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. Even

though there is offene under Section 325 of IPC is also alleged, taking into consideration of the fact that the parties have come into an amicable

settlement and in the affidavit the de facto complainant has stated that she is living harmoniously and peacefully with husband, I am inclined to allow

the Criminal M.C. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of

the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in

Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582 ]and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] ,there is no

impediment in granting the relief sought.

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure- A1 FIR and the proceedings in Crime No.1217/2020 registered at the Puthencruze Police Station is

quashed.