Abdul Karim, Basheer and Sathar v. K.B. Bava, Aneez, State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014/31ST SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4286 of 2014 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **CC 3352/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, CHALAKUDY** ## **CRIME NO. 801/2013 OF MALA POLICE STATION , TRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 - 3:** **------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ABDUL KARIM, AGED 60 YEARS** - **S/O. BEERAVUNNI, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE MALA PALLIPURAM DESOM, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **2. BASHEER, AGED 45 YEARS** - **S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE MALA PALLIPURAM DESOM, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **3. SATHAR, AGED 35 YEARS** - **S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE MALA PALLIPURAM DESOM, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. K.B.BAVA, AGED 62 YEARS** - **S/O. BEERU, KUZHIKANDATHIL VEETIL, THANIYATTHUKUNNU THAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **2. ANEEZ, AGED 27 YEARS** ## **S/O. BAVA, KUZHIKANDATHIL VEETIL, THANIYATTHUKUNNU THAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT** ## **3. STATE OF KERALA,** - **THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.** ## **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.JOSEPH R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4286 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1:COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.3352/2013 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY.** **ANNEXURE 2:ORIGINAL OPY OF THE COMPOUNDING AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.2014.** **ANNEXURE 3:ORIGINAL COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE INJURED/2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.2014.** **ANNEXURE 4:ORIGINAL COPY OF THE JOINT COMPOUNDING STATEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES DATED 12.7.2014.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKV** ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------** CRL.M.C. No.4286 OF 2014 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of August, 2014 ## ORDER This is an application filed by the petitioners who are the accused numbers 1 to 3 in C.C. No.3352 of 2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners were arrayed as accused numbers 1 to 3 in Crime No.801 of 2013 of Mala Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 1[st] respondent as defacto complainant alleging offences under Section 448, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(1) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.3352 of 2013 and now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy. The dispute is between family members. 1[st] respondent is the father-in-law of the 3[rd] petitioner and CRL.M.C. No.4286 OF 2014 2 2[nd] respondent is the brother in law of the 3[rd] petitioner and petitioners 1 and 2 are the relatives of the 3[rd] petitioner. In fact there was some matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the 1[st] respondent, who is the wife of the 3[rd] petitioner and on account of that, on 3.4.2014 some incident happened and on the basis of the statement given by the 1[st] respondent, above crime was registered. Now, the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of the well-wishers and the 3[rd] petitioner is now residing with the daughter of the defacto complainant. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the court below. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: ”To quash Annexure 1 final report in C.C.No.3352 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy.” CRL.M.C. No.4286 OF 2014 3 3. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. It is a matrimonial dispute and the daughter of the1[st] respondent is now residing with the 3[rd] petitioner and so they do not want to prosecute the case on account of settlement. They also stated that they have filed Annexure A2 and A3 affidavits stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and they prayed for allowing the application. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction as directed by this Court, submitted that there was matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in the registration of the crime and there is no other case against the petitioners but opposed the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that the 3[rd] petitioner married the daughter of the 1[st] respondent and petitioners 1 and 2 are his father and brother. The 2[nd] respondent is CRL.M.C. No.4286 OF 2014 4 the brother-in-law of the 3[rd] petitioner. After some time of marriage, there was some mis-understanding between the 3[rd] petitioner and his wife and she was residing separately and in respect of the same, some dispute arose and an incident happened on 3.4.2014. Further, the daughter of the 1[st] respondent also filed a complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and that was also pending at that time. In respect of the incident happened on 3.4.2014, the 1[st] respondent gave a statement on the basis of which Crime No.801 of 2013 was registered against the petitioners alleging offences under Section 448, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(1) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 7. After investigation, Annexure 1 final report was filed. It was taken on file as C.C. No.3352 of 2013 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Chalakudy. The matter has been now settled between the parties. It is seen from the affidavits filed by respondents CRL.M.C. No.4286 OF 2014 5 1 and 2 that the daughter of the 1[st] respondent and sister of the 2[nd] respondent is now happily residing with the 3[rd] petitioner who is her husband. On account of the settlement, they do not want to prosecute the case as well. Since it is a matrimonial dispute which has been resulted in the registration of crime and same has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of the well-wishers of both parties and harmony has been brought in the family, then the court must always honour such settlement. On account of the settlement conviction in such cases will be remote as none of the witnesses including the defacto complainant will support the case of the prosecution. Both the counsel submitted that the case filed by the wife of the 3[rd] petitioner alleging offence under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code was also quashed by this court in another proceedings. Now they are living happily. 8. The decision reported in _**Gian Singh v State of**_ CRL.M.C. No.4286 OF 2014 6 _**Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 SC],**_ the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that on account of the matrimonial dispute if crimes are registered and due to the intervention of the well-wishers if that dispute is settled and harmony has been restored in the family, then the court should honour such settlement and even if non compoundable offences are incorporated invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the same can be quashed by the court. 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a family dispute which resulted in the registration of crime and filing of final report which has been settled due to the intervention of well-wishers and there is reunion happened between the daughter of the 1[st] respondent with the 3[rd] petitioner and on account of the settlement they do not want to prosecute the case and conviction in such cases will be remote, this court feels that it is a fit CRL.M.C. No.4286 OF 2014 7 case where the power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and the restoration of harmony between the two family members and causing re-union of 3[rd] petitioner with his wife who is the daughter of the defacto complainant and the pendency of this case should not be huddle for the same. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No. 3352 of 2013 (Crime No.801 of 2012 of Mala Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Chalakudy as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. Sd/- ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** /True Copy/ P.A. To Judge SKV