High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-02-20Crl.M.C. 980/2013 allowed; final report and all...

Ajeesh Kumar, Ramachandran, Rugmini and Renuka v. State of Kerala and Salini

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No.980 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-02-20
Court Decision / Holding: CRL.M.C.980/13 allowed; quashed Annexure-B final report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.948/2012 pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C. 980/2013 allowed; final report and all further proceedings in Crime No. 488/2010 and in SC No. 948/2012 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ajeesh Kumar
Ramachandran
Rugmini
Renuka

Respondents

State of Kerala
Salini

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. G. Sudheer

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S.K. Vinod
• Smt. S. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners Ajeesh Kumar, Ramachandran, Rugmini and Renuka, accused in SC No. 948 of 2012 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara, filed CRL.M.C. No. 980 of 2013 seeking to invoke the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Crime No. 488/2010 of the Maranalloor Police Station and the connected proceedings in S.C. No. 948/2012. The charges alleged offences under sections 498A and 308 read with 34 IPC. The second respondent’s complaint stemmed from a marital discord; Annexure-C shows a settlement between the parties with a plan to live together, suggesting rekindling of matrimonial harmony. The petition argues that although 498A is non‑compoundable, the High Court may exercise inherent power to quash where settlement and interests of justice require, citing B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court, after hearing counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent and the Public Prosecutor, notes the amicable settlement and the objective of protecting the institution of marriage. In light of Gian Singh, continuing proceedings is not in the interest of justice, so the petition is allowed and the final report and all further proceedings in SC 948/2012 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A IPCSection 308 IPCSection 34 IPCChapter XXA of IPC (498A)Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 320 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.
Non‑compoundability of 498A does not bar quashing where the parties have settled.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (settlement/interest of justice warrants interference).
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (inherent power can be exercised in settlement cases despite 498A).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent had been amicably settled, as evidenced by Annexure-C. They argued that continuing criminal proceedings under sections 498A and 308 IPC would be an unnecessary harassment and would undermine the institution of marriage. Although 498A is non‑compoundable, the petition invoked the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the final report and proceedings, citing B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to justify interference in cases of settlement where continuation would be contrary to justice. They contended that the second respondent’s affidavits demonstrate willingness to live together, and that the ends of justice would be best served by quashing the case.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that while 498A is non‑compoundable and the matter concerns serious allegations, the continuance of proceedings should not be automatic; however, given that the dispute had been settled, the High Court's inherent power could be invoked to prevent harassment and preserve family unity. They argued that the court must exercise caution to avoid undermining statutory provisions, but the circumstances and the affidavits indicate settlement. The prosecution urged that the settlement be weighed against the gravity of the offences, yet acknowledged the need to consider the public policy of preserving marriages when parties are reconciled.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	Cited to justify the High Court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases where the parties have settled despite 498A being non‑compoundable.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support intervention in the interest of justice to quash proceedings when matrimonial settlement is reached.

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 Ajeesh Kumar, Ramachandran, Rugmini and Renuka v. State of Kerala and Salini 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 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/1ST PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 980 of 2013 () ------------------------SC.948/2012 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO. 488/2010 OF MARANALLOR POLICE STATION. PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ----------------------------- ## 1. AJEESH KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS - S/O RAMACHANDRAN, RUGMINI BHAVAN, MANNADIKONAM OORUTTAMBALAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE. ## 2. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O SIVARAMAN, RUGMINI BHAVAN, MANNADIKONAM OORUTTAMBALAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE. ## 3. RUGUMINI, AGED 59 YEARS D/O JANAKI, RUGMINI BHAVAN, MANNADIKONAM OORUTTAMBALAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE. 4. RENUKA, AGED 37 YEARS - D/O. RUGMINI, RUGMINI BHAVAN, MANNADIKONAM OORUTTAMBALAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER ## RESPONDENTS(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ## 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ## 2. SALINI, D/O. VASANTHA, VASANTHAVILASOM, MANACAUD PUTHUVAL T.C.81/1497(1), CHITHIRA NAGAR, KULATHOOR ATTIPPRA DESOM & VILLAGE-695 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.VINOD R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.980/13 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: - ANNEXURE A:TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.488/2010 DATED 24.9.2010 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION. - ANNEXURE B:TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.488/2010 DATED 24.9.2010 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KATTAKADA. - ANNEXURE C:AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 16.2.2013. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.980 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 20[th] day of February, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.948 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. The indictment against them is one of commission of offence under sections 498A and 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent herein lodged a complaint based on which crime No.488 of 2010 of Maranalloor Police Station was registered. Annexure-B is the charge sheet in the said crime. First petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. In fact, it is the strained relationship between them and the constant bickering that constrained the second respondent to lodge a complaint that resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime. Annexure-C affidavit filed by the second respondent would reveal that the second respondent had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of the **Crl.M.C.980/13** 2 aforesaid crime, with the petitioners. 2. True that an offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the decision in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)),** taking into account the intent behind the introduction of Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case where wife on settling the issues that led to the lodging of the complaint wants to settle her life, there is no reason to decline exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, non-exercise of inherent power would defeat the purport of Section 498A. It is further held therein that though Section 498A is non-compoundable in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot and will not limit or affect the powers of the High Court to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases. **Crl.M.C.980/13** 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Annexure-C would reveal that crime No.488 of 2010 of Maranalloor Police Station was registered at the instance of the second respondent based on a complaint on account of the marital dispute with the first petitioner. It is thus evident from Annexure-C that the dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent have been amicably settled and they have decided to live together. It is thus obvious that the second respondent wanted to protect and preserve the institution of marriage and when that is the prayer of the parties, interest of justice warrants interference by invoking the powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C to create such a conducive situation to the couple. 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 will not be in the interest of justice to allow continuance of proceedings based on Annexure-A as it has evidently become unnecessary. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this **Crl.M.C.980/13** 4 is a fit case wherein this Court should invoke the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-B final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in S.C.No.948 of 2012 pending before the Court of Additional . Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara are hereby quashed **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.980/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.980/13** 6