Abdul Samad v. Shahida and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/28TH ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No.5847 of 2014** ## **---------------------------------** **CC NO.1196/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,VADAKARA. CRIME NO.602/2012 OF VATAGARA POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE.** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **ABDUL SAMAD,S/O.AMMAD,AGED 36 YEARS, PURAVALAPPIL HOUSE,KOTTAPALLY AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. SHAHIDA,D/O.SOOPY,AGED 28 YEARS, KARRIYATTU HOUSE,VILLIAPALLY AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK-673101.** **2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.** **R1 BY ADV.SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **pk** **Crl.MC No.5847/2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE I:CERTIFIED COPY F.I.R & POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.602/12 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II:TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT 13.9.2014.** **ANNEXURE III:SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **pk** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2014** ## **ORDER** The above captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.), seeking invocation of the inherent powers of this Court conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned Annexure I FIR and final report/charge sheet in Crime No.602 of 2012 of Vatakara Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C No.1196 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.1196 of 2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. 2. The brief of the prosecution allegation is that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent was solemnized on 27.07.2002 and they were ling as husband and wife. Later, the petitioner demanded more dowry and gold ornaments and harassed the 1[st] respondent physically and mentally and misappropriated her gold ornaments and thereby he has committed the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 1[st] respondent initially Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 2 filed a private criminal complaint alleging the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and his mother before the aforesaid Magistrate Court and the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Police and after investigation the Police filed final report/charge sheet before the Magistrate Court concerned against the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner, who was A2 in the FIR, was deleted by the Police from the impugned criminal proceeding. After registration of the crime, the Police conducted investigation and submitted Annexure I FIR and final report/charge sheet in respect of the above crime, which led to C.C No.1196 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. It is now submitted that the family dispute, which led to the case, was amicably settled between the parties in the presence of the mediators and family members of both parties, whereby the petitioner has divorced the 1[st] respondent and the benefits available to the divorced woman has been given to the 1[st] respondent in the presence of mediators. Annexure II is the copy of the mediation settlement/agreement executed between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent. Clause 6 of Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 3 Annexure II settlement dated 13.09.2014 stipulates that as per the settled agreement both parties have agreed for the termination of the impugned criminal proceedings, which has led to C.C No.1196 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. The 1[st] respondent has also sworn to an affidavit dated 24.09.2014 produced as Annexure III in the Crl.M.C, wherein it is stated that all the disputes between the spouses have been discussed in the midst of mediators and are settled and that the 1[st] respondent has no grievance against the petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.602 of 2012 of Vatakara Police Station, and she does not intend to proceed further against him and that the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR in Crime No.602 of 2012 of Vatakara Police Station may be quashed. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed. 3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Smt.P.A Aneesha has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent-State of Kerala. Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 4 4. Heard Sri.Zubair Pulikal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.P.A Aneesha, learned counsel appearing for 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2[nd] respondent-State of Kerala. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned impugned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the case have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 6. Smt.P.A Aneesha, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent, has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 1[st] respondent that the 1[st] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 5 does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as she has no grievance against him and that she will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 8. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offence alleged is more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is relevant to 6 Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [See SCC (Cri)]: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.. ## It is further held 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 Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 7 and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........” Further, in the case **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others** v. **Babita Raghuvanshi and another** reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 [see 2013 (1) KLD 817 (SC)], the Apex Court has held as follows:- “8. It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C. not only against the husband but also against the relatives of the husband. The question is when such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both the sides approached the High Court and jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C., whether the prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. 9. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/ settlement. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise before the Trial Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in additional to the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent/-wife has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants and fully supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that no only the Trial Court rejected such prayer of Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 8 the parties but also the High Court failed toe exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on the ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non-compoundable in nature. 15. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are noncompoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the Courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the matrimonial disputes between the Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 9 disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Crl.M.C No.5847 of 2014 10 Annexure 1 FIR and final report/ Charge Sheet in Crime No.602 of 2012 of Vatakara Police Station which has led to C.C No.1196 of 2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, and all further proceedings arising therefrom stands quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Vatakara Police Station. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** vdv