High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Abdul Sathar P., Khayarunnisa P., Meharoof P.P. and P. Musthafa v. State of Kerala and Safreena Basheer V.V.

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.1749 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2014-04-04
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. The High Court quashes the further proceedings in C.C.No.177/2014 (Crime No.762/2012/792/2012, Kannur City Police Station, as noted in the order) against the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC, directing that the case be closed and communicated to the concerned court for necessary action. The decision promotes the settlement and family harmony.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abdul Sathar P.
  • Khayarunnisa P.
  • Meharoof P.P.
  • P. Musthafa

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • SafreenA Basheer V.V.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri.K.P.Sujesh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor SMT. Sareena George.P.
  • • Adv. Sri. Lal Abraham

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1749 of 2014) filed in the Kerala High Court seeking exercise of the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet in C.C.No.177/2014, arising from Crime No.762/2012 of Kannur City Police Station (later re-numbered as C.C.No.199/2013 and then C.C.No.177/2014). The petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 in a matrimonial dispute where the second respondent-wife lodged offences under IPC Sections 498A, 406 read with 34 against them. The case traces the investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report. The parties have since settled the dispute with family mediation, and the marriage has been dissolved; the second respondent submitted Annexure-A3 affidavit stating no objection to quashing. Counsel for petitioners argued that the settlement makes conviction unlikely and that, in light of the settlement and harmony between families, quashing would promote settlement in matrimonial homes. The Public Prosecutor opposed the quashing, noting that offences are non-compoundable and urging continued prosecution. The High Court, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, holds that in such settled family disputes, the proceedings may be quashed to preserve harmony and avoid further litigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 156(3) of CrPCSection 498A IPCSection 406 IPCSection 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • In matrimonial disputes, settlements between parties should be honoured and the prosecution should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to promote harmony in the family.
  • The court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to support quashing where settlement has been achieved through mediation and family intervention.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the ongoing proceedings in C.C.No.177/2014, arising from Crime No.762/2012 (Kannur City Police Station), should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in view of a settlement reached between the spouses and mediated by family members. The second respondent-wife has no intention to prosecute, and the marriage has dissolved. The petitioning accused argued that continued prosecution is unnecessary given that the parties have resolved their differences, and that the likelihood of conviction is remote. Annexure-A3 affidavit in support of settlement was filed. Citing the settled family dispute principle, they asserted that allowing the charge sheet to proceed would undermine the settlement and disrupt family harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing, acknowledging the matrimonial dispute but arguing that offences are non-compoundable and prosecution should continue to protect the interests of justice and deter abuse. He noted there is no other pending case against the petitioners, but emphasized maintaining a legal process to ensure accountability for the alleged offences (498A, 406 read with 34 IPC). The Respondents urged the court to refuse quashing and allow the ongoing criminal process to proceed, in view of the seriousness of the offences and the statutory non-compoundability.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited to support quashing of proceedings under 482 CrPC in matrimonial disputes where the parties have settled and mediation has occurred, aiming to promote harmony.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Sathar P., Khayarunnisa P., Meharoof P.P. and P. Musthafa v. State of Kerala and Safreena Basheer V.V. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/14TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1749 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO.177/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, KANNUR CRIME NO. 762/2012 OF KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT** **------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ABDUL SATHAR.P.,S/O.MAMU, POOCHERYIANTAVIDA HOUSE, ITTANDIPOOVALAPPU, KANNUR CITY - 670 003.** **2. KHAYARUNNISA.P, W/O.MEHAROOF, MUSTHAFFA'S LINE ROOM, MAITHANPALLY, KANNUR - 670 003.** ## **3. MEHAROOF.P.P, S/O.USMAN, MUSTHAFFA'S LINE ROOM, MAITHANPALLY, KANNUR - 670 003.** ## **4. P. MUSTHAFA,** **S/O.MAMU, N.P HOUSE, KATTAMBALLIKUNNU, CHIRACKAL AMSOM, KANNUR - 670 003.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **-----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ## **2. SAFREENA BASHEER V.V.,** **MAHAL-AL-DAITH, SADDAM BEACH ROAD, EDAKKAD AMSOM,ADIKADALAYI, KANNUR - 670 003.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P. R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL ABRAHAM** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 1749 of 2014 ()** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **-------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.762/2012 OF KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, DATED 25.10.2012** **ANNEX A2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.199/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, KANNUR.** **ANNEX A3 : AFFIDACIT SWORN TO BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 05.03.2014** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1749 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.177/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, 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, the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.177/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, which was originated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the 'Code' and on that basis Annexure-A1 first information report was registered as Crime No.762/2012 of Kannur City Police Station and after investigation, Crl.M.C. No.1749 of 2014 2 Annexure-A2 final report was filed and thereafter, it was taken on file by the learned magistrate. 2[nd] respondent is none other than the wife of the first petitioner. It was a matrimonial dispute that resulted in the registration of the crime. The matter has been now settled between the parties, due to the involvement of family members and other well-wishers. They have decided to withdraw all the cases pending between them and the matter has been settled once for all. The 2[nd] respondent has no intention to prosecute the petitioners in view of the settlement. Since, the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature, the petitioners have no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash Annexure-A2 charge sheet in C.C.No.177/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur.” **==> picture [361 x 15] intentionally omitted <==** counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and they field Annexure-A3 affidavit supporting the settlement. Due to the settlement, the Crl.M.C. No.1749 of 2014 3 marriage between the first petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent has been dissolved and they do not want to prosecute the petitioners any more. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. So they prayed for allowing the application. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, as directed by this court submitted that, there is no other case pending against the petitioners and it is a matrimonial dispute, but opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that, the first petitioner married the defacto-complainant, who is shown as 2[nd] respondent herein and after some time, the love between them lost, which resulted in filing of criminal complaint, alleging offence under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the 'Code' and on the basis of which, Annexure-A1 first information report was registered, as Crime No.762/12 of Kannur City Police Crl.M.C. No.1749 of 2014 4 Station, alleging offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. After investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was filed against the petitioners, alleging offences under Section 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and it was originally taken on file as C.C.No.199/2013 and later re-numbered as C.C.No.177/2014 and now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. Further apart from this case, there were other cases also between the spouses before the family court and also before the magistrate court. On the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties, parties have decided to dissolve their marriage and on that basis, the marriage has been dissolved as well and all the cases pending before the court were withdrawn except this case and they have decided to file application for quashing this complaint as well. It is on that basis, this criminal miscellaneous case has been filed. Further, the 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and filed Annexure-A3 affidavit stating these facts and Crl.M.C. No.1749 of 2014 5 expressing her no objection in allowing the application. 6. It is a family dispute and that has been resolved through mediation in the presence of family members and there is no possibility of conviction being entered against the petitioners, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue. Further in the case of family disputes, the settlement arrived at between the parties have to be honoured by the courts and that must be given effect as well. 7. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , it has been held that: **“** In family disputes, if the parties have settled the issues, due to the intervention of well-wishers and the family members and does not want to proceeded with the criminal prosecution initiated, then that must be honoured and the prosecution has to be quashed, invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code.” 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, it is a family dispute, which has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators, well-wishers and family Crl.M.C. No.1749 of 2014 6 members, which resulted in harmony among the two families in which ultimately the spouses decided to separate and pendeny of this case should be a hurdle for their future marital life and possibility of conviction is remote on account of the settlement, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, as against the petitioners, in order to promote the settlement arrived at between the parties, which resulted in harmony in the two families, in the matrimonial home. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.177/2014 now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur (Crime No.792/2012 of Kannur City Police Station) as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately for necessary further action. ## Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss