Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY,THE28H DAY OF JANUARY20148TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 939 of 2014 (C) --------------------------- CC.NO. 562/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.I, KANNUR ------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED33YEARS MATTATHIL THAYAL PURAYIL CHERUKUNNU POST, KANNUR-670 301.
2. NABEESA, W/O.MUHAMMED, AGED55YEARS, MATTATHIL THAYAL PURAYIL CHERUKUNNU POST, KANNUR-670 301.
3. JAMEELA, D/O.MUHAMMED, AGED35YEARS MATTATHIL THAYAL PURAYIL CHERUKUNNU POST, KANNUR-670 301. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVI SANKAR RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. RAMSEENA D/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED25YEARS KADAPURATH HOUSE, IRINAVU POST KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 301. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE P. R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2801-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 939 of 2014 (C) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : ------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A- TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED277.2011 NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.562 OF2011ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1, KANNUR. ANNEXURE B- TRUE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED231.2014 OF THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.939 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2014 ORDER
This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.562/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kannur, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code').
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.562/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kannur, which was originated on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, alleging commission of offences under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the first petitioner and the 2nd petitioner is the mother and the 3rd petitioner is the sister of Crl.M.C. No.939 of 2014 2 the first petitioner. The marriage between the first petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnised on 24.02.2008 and a child was born to them in that wedlock on 16.12.2008. Thereafter, there was some difference of opinion arose between the parties, which resulted in several litigations including the present criminal prosecution under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. The matter has been now settled between the parties and the 2nd respondent decided to withdraw all the cases filed by her, on the basis of the settlement. Since it is a non-compoundable offence, they have no other remedy except to approach this court for recording composition and quashing the proceedings. Hence this petition.
3. The 2nd respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the 2nd respondent has no objection in allowing the application. She has also filed an affidavit before this court, stating that in view of the Crl.M.C. No.939 of 2014 3 settlement arrived at between the parties, she does not want to proceed with the case and she has no objection in quashing the proceedings.
4. Whether such matters can be quashed, invoking the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another (2013(2) KLT47. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, where matrimonial disputes are involved in the criminal prosecution, if the matters have been settled between the parties due to the intervention of the family members, friends and well wishers and if they want to withdraw the criminal case on the basis of settlement, then the court must invoke the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' and quash the proceedings. The same view has been reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT108Crl.M.C. No.939 of 2014 4 (SC)]. Since it is a matrimonial dispute and the parties have settled the claims arisen between them, I feel that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' can be invoked to quash the proceedings, as no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. So the application is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.562/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kannur, against the petitioner is quashed, recording the compromise entered into between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent in this regard. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss