A.A Joseph Mathew and Shahida A.S. v State of Kerala and Sali Joseph

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 2738 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 1435/2015 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA M.C.NO.44/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: --------------------------** **1. A.A JOSEPH MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. A.B.ANTONY, ANJILIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.** ## **2. SHAHIDA A.S.** **AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. SULAIMANKUNJU, SHA MANZIL, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.S.PRADEEP** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **-------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. SALI JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH, ANJILIPARAMBU, SANATHANAPURAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 007.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **DSV/12/5/16** **Crl.MC.No. 2738 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS :** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1435/2015 OF THE ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, DTD.10.10.2015.** **ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.15.4.2016.** **RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS :** **-----------------------** ## **NIL** **// True Copy // P.A. To Judge** **==> picture [73 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> DSV/12/5/16<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2738 of 2016 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of May, 2016 ## O R D E R Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1435 of 2015 of the Alappuzha South Police Station have filed this application to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called ‘the Code’). 2. The case of the petitioners in the petition is that the 1[st] petitioner is the husband of the 2[nd] respondent and the 2[nd] petitioner is a known person to them. There was some misunderstanding arose between the 1[st] petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent in respect of some relationship of the 1[st] petitioner with the 2[nd] petitioner, which resulted in filing M.C.No.44 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Alappuzha, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called ‘the D.V.Act’), Crl.M.C.No. 2738 of 2016 2 claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the D.V.Act and a protection order was passed in that case as an interim relief. Since that was said to have been violated and certain other incidents occurred, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, Annexure-1 crime was registered as Crime No.1435 of 2015 of the Alappuzha South Police Station against the present petitioners alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 323, 506(i), 120B, 111 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 31 of the D.V.Act. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Final Report has been filed on 02.02.2016. Considering the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, a report has been called for from the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Alappuzha. The learned Magistrate sent a report stating that no Final Report has been filed in Crime No.1435 of 2015 of the Alappuzha South Police Station. But M.C.No.44 of 2013 was referred to Adalath and the matter has been settled in the Adalath held on 09.11.2015. On the basis of the award passed in the Adalath, M.C.No.44 of 2013 was dismissed as not pressed by the complainant/2[nd] respondent herein on 20.02.2016 and that the matter is not pending before that court. Crl.M.C.No. 2738 of 2016 3 4. The misunderstanding between the parties has been resolved and the 1[st] petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent have started residing together on the basis of the settlement. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they cannot file any application before the the court below for compounding the case. So the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs: “to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the FIR in Crime No.1435 of 2015 of the Alappuzha South Police on the files of the Judicial 1[st] Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha to secure the ends of justice.” 5. Heard Adv.Sri.P.S.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Adv.Sri.S.R.Sreejith, the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent and Adv.Sri.Jibu P. Thomas, the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1[st] respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and, when it is a matrimonial dispute and now the 1[st] petitioner and the 2[nd] Crl.M.C.No. 2738 of 2016 4 respondent have started residing together on account of the settlement. So he prayed for allowing the application. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent also submitted that on account of the settlement in the Adalath, the matter has been settled and they are residing together and she does not want to prosecute the case. The application opposed by the learned Pubic Prosecutor. 7. The 2[nd] respondent has filed Annexure-2 affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and she is now residing with the 1[st] petitioner happily and she does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioners. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no possibility of conviction. 8. Further in the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of** **Panjab** reported in **2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)** , the Honourable Supreme Court had held that in a case where family relationships are involved and on account of family disputes, some crimes have been registered and if the same are settled between the parties on account of intervention of the well wishers, then court has to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the Crl.M.C.No. 2738 of 2016 5 proceedings even if offences of non-compoundable in nature has been incorporated so as to promote the settlement and restore the harmony between the members of the family. 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision, considering the fact that it is a family dispute, the matter has been settled between the parties in the Lok Adalath held on 09.11.2015, on account of the settlement in M.C.No.44 of 2013 filed by the 2[nd] respondent has been withdrawn, they have been started residing together happily and in view of the settlement, conviction is remote and proceeding with the case will only amount to wastage of judicial time, this Court feels that this is a fit case, where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement and protect the harmony that has been restored among the family members and the pendency of the case should not be a hurdle for the same. So the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No.1435 of 2015 of the Alappuzha South Police Crl.M.C.No. 2738 of 2016 6 Station pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Alappuzha as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE // True Copy // DSV/11/5/16 P.A. To Judge