Alnas @ Animon v. State of Kerala

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/5TH ASHADHA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 3286 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.250/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL. CRIME NO. 856/2011 OF KAZHAKKUTTAM POLICE STATION.** **.......** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:-** **---------------------------------------------------------** **1. ALNAS @ ANIMON, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 30 YEARS, NAZIM MANZIL, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. JUSTUS FERNANDEZ, S/O.LAWERANCE FERNANDEZ, AGED 48 YEARS, NAZIM MANZIL, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. NAZIM RANI, D/O.ARIFA BEEVI, AGED 38 YEARS, NAZIM MANZIL, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. ARIFA HAMEED, D/O.AISHA BEEVI, AGED 63 YEARS, NAZIM MANZIL, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU,** **SMT.BINDU GEORGE.** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. THANOOJA, D/O.SEENATH, AGED 28 YEARS, JAMEELA HOUSE, CHENKOTTUKONAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **Crl.MC.No. 3286 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE 1. THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.856/2011 OF KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2. THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.856/2011 OF KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 3. THE COPY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.05.2012. ANNEXURE 4. THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.05.2012.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.3286 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of June, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.250/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, 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, petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.856/2011 of Kazhakuttam police station, which was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto-complainant/ 2[nd] respondent, alleging offences under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.250/2012. During the pendency of the case, the matter has been settled between the parties due to the Crl.M.C.No. 3286 / 2014 2 intervention of mediators and the first accused had divorced her and all the monetary disputes between them have been settled and on account of the settlement, she does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioners. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. Since the offence alleged is non-compoundable in nature, they could not file an application for compounding before the concerned magistrate court. So the petitioners have no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “On these and among other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash Annexure-1 & 2, FIR and Final report in Crime No.856/2011 of Kazhakuttam police station and the proceedings in C.C. No.250/2012 on the file of JFMCII, Attingal in the ends of justice”. **==> picture [361 x 16] intentionally omitted <==** counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and she does not want to prosecute the petitioners and on account of the settlement, she has no objection in allowing the application. She had filed Crl.M.C.No. 3286 / 2014 3 Annexure-IV affidavit stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and he prayed for allowing the application. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that, it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 6. It is an admitted fact that, the first petitioner married the defacto-complainant/ 2[nd] respondent and other petitioners are the relatives of the first accused. After sometime, there was some mis-understanding arose between the first petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent and they separated and on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, Crime No.856/2011 of Kazhakittam police, produced as Annexure-I was registered and after investigation Annexure-II final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.250/2012 on the file of Judicial First Crl.M.C.No. 3286 / 2014 4 Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and they have decided to separate and accordingly the marriage between the first petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent was dissolved by pronouncing talaq and all monetary claims arising out the matrimonial relationship also has been settled, in the settlement arrived at the instance of well-wishers of both parties. So the 2[nd] respondent now does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioners. Since it is a family dispute, which resulted in settlement, even if the case is allowed to continue, no purpose will be served and conviction in such case will be remote. 7. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “In the case of family dispute arising between the spouses or family members and the dispute is settled between the parities on account of the intervention of mediators and they wanted to have harmony, then court must Crl.M.C.No. 3286 / 2014 5 honour such settlement and even if noncompoundable offence have been alleged, court must invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings to promote settlement on family disputes”. 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, it is a family dispute which resulted in the registration of crime and other litigations, which have been ultimately settled between the parties and no possibility of conviction in such cases, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, to promote settlement and harmony that has been resulted in the two families on account of the settlement and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.250/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, (Crime No.856/2011, of Kazhakuttam police station) as against the petitioners is 6 Crl.M.C.No. 3286 / 2014 hereby quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately for necessary further action. With the above direction and observation, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss