IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY,THE3D DAY OF FEBRUARY201414TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 982 of 2014 () -------------------------- CC.NO. 5095/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA CRIME NO. 905/2013 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION , THRISSUR DISTRICT ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. K.J.NOBLE, S/O.JAYARAJAN,AGED30YEARS, KARYANKATTIL HOUSE,KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
2. JAYARAJAN, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN, RESIDING -DO- 3. SUBHADRA, W/O.JAYARAJAN, RESIDING -DO- BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NEEHA HIRAN, D/O.HIRAN, PANAT HOUSE, KOORIKUZHI.P.O., KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. PIN- 680 664.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAKARA POLICE STATION. PIN-680 684.
3. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031. R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.SEEMA R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0302-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts Crl.MC.No. 982 of 2014 () ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE1T RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL1T CLASS MAGISTRATE IRINJALAKKUDA DATED65.13. ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CR.NO.905/13 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE III- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC509513 IN CR.NO.905/13 OF JUDICIAL1T CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA. ANNEXURE IV- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE1T RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.982 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2014 ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed by the accused in C.C.No.5095/2013 on the file of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, to quash the proceedings, after recording the composition entered into between the petitioners and the defacto-complainant, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code').
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused in C.C.5095/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, alleging offence under Section 498(A), 406, 312 and 313 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It was originated on the basis of a complaint given by the 2nd respondent as Annexure-1 by the first respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, which was forwarded to the police for investigation by Crl.M.C. No.982 of 2014 2 the learned magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code. On receipt of the same, the concerned police registered a case as Crime No.905/2013 under Section 498(A), 406, 312 and 313 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and after investigation the 2nd respondent filed final report before that court for the above said offences and the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the case as C.C.5095/2013. Now the matter has been settled between the parties, due to the intervention of the well-wishers and a compounding application has been filed before this court as Criminal M.A.No.1317/2014. The first respondent also has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled between the parties. No purpose will be served by proceeding the case, so they prayed for quashing the proceedings invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code. Hence the petition.
3. The first respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parities, and she has no objection in Crl.M.C. No.982 of 2014 3 quashing the proceedings as the matter has been settled between the parties.
4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also who opposed the application.
5. It is an admitted fact that the first petitioner married the first respondent and they lived together for sometime as husband and wife and thereafter due to some mis-understanding between them, they started residing separately and several litigations have been filed at the instance of the first respondent before the family court and also initiation of prosecution, which resulted in C.C.5095/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda. Due to the intervention of family members and well-wishers, the matters have been settled between the parities on the terms mentioned in Criminal M.A.No.1317/2014. Most of the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature. But it is an admitted fact that, it is really a family dispute, which resulted in the litigations including this proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the Crl.M.C. No.982 of 2014 4 decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT108(SC)], that compounding of offences under Section 320 and quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 are different and distinct. High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with such proceedings in view of the settlement and compromise to each. Further in the same decision, it has been observed as follows: "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court Crl.M.C. No.982 of 2014 5 shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 6. This is a family dispute. It is true that the offence under Section 312 and 313 of Indian Penal Code also incorporated, which is of little grave nature. But considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and there is no possibility of the defacto-complainant, supporting the case of the prosecution, even if the case is sent for trial, I feel that no purpose will be served by allowing the continuation of the proceedings in court. Further, since the parties to the lis have already decided to live separately and being a family dispute settled due to the intervention of family members and well-wishers, this court has to honour the compromise and allow them to live harmoniously on the basis of the settlement. So I feel that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings. So the application is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1595/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda (Crime No.905/2013 of Kodakara Police Crl.M.C. No.982 of 2014 6 Station) against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss