Ahammed Ali and Smt. Aisha v. Khairunnissa and State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/21ST ASWINA, 1936 Crl.MC.No.5032 of 2014 (C) --------------------------CC 460/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.260/2011 OF BADIADKKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------- ## 1. AHAMMED ALI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ABBAS, RESIDING AT KADAMKODE HOUSE, KAINOTH MELPARAMBA, POST KALNAD, KALNAD VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. SMT.AISHA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.ABBAS, RESIDING AT KADAMKODE HOUSE, KAINOTH MELPARAMBA, POST KALNAD, KALNAD VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH ## RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------ 1. KHAIRUNNISSA, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.ABDULLA B.C., RESIDING AT BUSRA MANZIL BILAL NAGAR, NELLIKATTA POST NEKRAJE - 671 543, PADY VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. ## 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER BADIADKA POLICE STATION, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD -671 541. ## 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682031. R1 BY ADV. SMT.MARY RANZOM LOUIZ R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5032 of 2014 C() --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE-A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.260/2011 ON THE FILE OF BADIADUKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DIST. ANNEXURE-A3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.260/2011 ANNEXURE-A4: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C) has been filed with the prayers to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.460/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragode, which arose out of Crime No.260/2011 of Badiadka Police Station, Kasaragode District. Petitioners are the two accused in Crime No.260/2011 of Badiadka Police Station for offences registered under Sections 341, 323, 498(A) r/w Section 34 IPC. The said crime was registered at the instance of the 1[st] respondent herein, who is the wife of the 1[st] petitioner herein, on the basis of the complaint filed by her before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragode, which led to registration of the aforementioned crime and the submission of the final report thereon. The matter is now pending as C.C.No.460/2012 before the aforementioned Magistrate Court. It is the prosecution case that the 1[st] petitioner and 1[st] respondent had got married on 12.7.2009 as per the custom prevailing in the ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** Muslim community and that the marital life of the 1[st] respondent wife became miserable from the beginning due to the cruel treatment of the accused and that as she could not bear the several incidents and allegations and ill-treatment by the accused, she was constrained to set up the criminal proceedings, as stated above etc. It is submitted that the rival parties to the dispute, which essentially arose out of matrimonial relationship, have agreed to settle all the issues pending between them amicably and that the 1[st] respondent is not intending to proceed with the case further in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties. After the said settlement, the 1[st] petitioner and 1[st] respondent are living together as husband and wife without any serious issues and that they are seeking to attain matrimonial harmony and that it is not necessary to proceed with the impugned criminal proceedings as against the petitioners. Annexure-4 is the affidavit dated 25.8.2011 sworn to by the 1[st] respondent wife and affirming to correctness of the aforementioned pleadings and submissions regarding the settlement and the 1[st] respondent has stated thereon that she has no objection to ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** quash the entire proceedings against the accused. It is in the light of the specific averments that the petitioners submit that the disputes have been resolved amicably between the rival parties and that this Crl.M.C is instituted with the prayers to quash the entirety of the impugned criminal proceedings as stated above. 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Smt.Mary Ranzom Louiz has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 2[nd] & 3[rd] respondents. 3. Heard Sri. C.K.Sreejith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Mary Ranzom Louiz, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2[nd] & 3[rd] respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, 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 ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 5. Smt. Mary Ranzom Louiz, 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 as stated above and that she has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured 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/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that the court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** 7. 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 offences alleged are 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 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_ ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** _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,_ ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** _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 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_ ::8:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** _ground that since the offences are noncompoundable 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 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_ ::9:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** _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 non-compoundable, 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_ ::10:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** _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.”_ 8. 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 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 ::11:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** 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. 9. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure-3 proceedings which led to C.C.No.460/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragode in Crime No.260/2011 of Badiadka Police Station and all further proceedings therefrom stands quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of ::12:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5032 Of 2014** this order before the court below, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragode as well as before the Station House Officer, Badiadka Police Station, Kasaragode District. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-