High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-02-27Quashed the final report and the related procee...

Abubaker S/o Ahamedkutty v. State of Kerala and Fathima

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.1058/13

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-02-27
Court Decision / Holding: This Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-C final report in Crime No.260 of 2012 of Koduvalli Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in CC No.668 of 2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamarassery are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed the final report and the related proceedings; Crl.M.C. allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abubaker S/o Ahamedkutty

Respondents

State of Kerala
Fathima

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Luiz Godwin D'Couth

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor (State) – SMT. S. Hyma
• Sri. Jose KuriaKose (Vilangattil)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner, Abubaker S/o Ahamedkutty, and his wife Fathima. Fathima lodged a complaint under sections 498A and 323 IPC, leading to Crime No.260/2012 at Koduvalli Police Station. The final report in that crime was filed as Annexure-C and the proceedings are presently pending as CC No.668/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamarassery. The petitioner seeks quashment of the final report and the ongoing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that the marital issues have been amicably settled and the couple have decided to live together. The court notes Annexure-D, an affidavit from the second respondent supporting the settlement, and references Supreme Court precedents that support quashing in such circumstances. It cites B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), approving the exercise of inherent power under 482 Cr.P.C to terminate proceedings where continued prosecution would frustrate the settlement and the ends of justice, especially to protect the institution of marriage. After examination, the court deems continued proceedings unnecessary and vindicates the settlement, allowing the Crl.M.C. and quashing Annexure-C final report and the related CC proceedings."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A IPCSection 323 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ends of justice doctrine
Settlement in matrimonial disputes can justify quashing under 482 Cr.P.C as recognized by precedents
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (cited)
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (cited)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that the marital discord has been amicably settled, as evidenced by Annexure-D, and the couple now intends to reside together. Since the issues giving rise to the complaint have been resolved, continuing the prosecution would be an unnecessary harassment and would defeat the ends of justice. Relying on the inherent power under 482 Cr.P.C and the Supreme Court decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the petitioner seeks quashment of the final report (Annexure-C) and the related proceedings, asserting that quashing would preserve the institution of marriage and serve the larger objective of restorative justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the case involves a penal complaint under 498A/323 IPC and ongoing criminal proceedings; however, the respondents recognize the need to consider the settlement and the interest of justice. The State contends that while settlement is relevant, the court must ensure that the ends of justice and public policy are not undermined; nevertheless, the court may exercise inherent jurisdiction if warranted by the circumstances and in light of the settlement presented.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC	Positive	Cited as authority for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings to protect the marriage when the issues have been amicably settled.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 SC	Positive	Cited to justify terminating proceedings that have become unnecessary and to secure ends of justice in matrimonial disputes after settlement.

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 Abubaker S/o Ahamedkutty v. State of Kerala and Fathima 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/8TH PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 1058 of 2013 () -------------------------AGAINST CC.668/2012 of J.M.F.C.,THAMARASSERY CRIME NO. 260/2012 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED ----------------------------- ABUBAKER S/O.AHAMEDKUTTY, PARACKAL HOUSE, NARIKUNI P.O THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D' COUTH ## RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT(S): ------------------------------------------------- ## 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. FATHIMA W/O.ABUBAKER, PARACKAL HOUSE, NARIKUNI P.O THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.1058/13 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE B: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.260/2012. ANNEXURE C:THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.260/2012. ANNEXURE D:THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1058 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 27[th] day of February, 2013 ## **ORDER** The petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. Bickering became a routine in their life and that constrained the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.260 of 2012 of Koduvally Police Station was registered based on her complaint and Annexure-B is the FIR registered based on the said complaint. After investigation, Annexure-C final report was laid in the aforesaid crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-C final report laid in the said crime which is now pending as C.C.No.668 of 2012 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamarassery on the ground that the entire issues that constrained the second respondent-wife to lodge complaint against the **Crl.M.C.1058/13** 2 petitioner that resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled amicably. It is further stated that after compromising the marital discord, they have now taken a decision to reside together, peacefully. The second respondent has filed Annexure-D affidavit in this case virtually endorsing the aforesaid statements of the petitioner. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perusing Annexure-D affidavit which leaves no doubt regarding the fact that the entire issues had been settled amicably and fortunately the parties have decided to preserve the institution of marriage, I got no doubt with respect to the position that the Courts have a duty to protect and preserve the institution of marriage in a civilized society wherever it is possible. Now, it is evident that after settling the issues, petitioner and the second respondent have decided to reside together. In the decision in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Hariyana** reported in **[2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is only proper **Crl.M.C.1058/13** 3 to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C to enable the wife, who happened to file a petition complaining of commission of offence under section 498 A against the husband and then seeks for its quashment, to settle in her life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in such circumstances, declining to interfere by invoking the jurisdiction to prevent the wife from settling in her life, would certainly defeat the very purpose and purport of the introduction of Chapter XX-A under section 498A in the Indian Penal Code. It is evident from the position obtained in this case that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner/accused based on Annexure-C final report has become absolutely unnecessary and it is liable to be quashed, to secure ends of justice. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** reported in **[2012 (4) KLT 108 SC]** , it is the bounden duty of this Court to terminate proceedings that became absolutely **Crl.M.C.1058/13** 4 unnecessary. In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-C final report laid in crime No.260 of 2012 of Koduvally Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.668 of 2012 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamarassery are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1058/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.1058/13** 6