Anees, Shaheena and Amina v. State of Kerala and Hafsa

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2013/1ST BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3557 of 2013** **---------------------------------[S.C. NO.125/2012 AND 522/2011 OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI, CRIME NO. 178/2011 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM]** **.................** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3:** **-----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ANEES,** **S/O.ALAVI HAJI, AGED 27 YEARS, CHELATTINMEL HOUSE, MUNDUMOOZHI, VAZHAKKAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. SHAHEENA,** - **D/O.ALAVI HAJI,AGED 30 YEARS, CHELATTINMEL HOUSE, MUNDUMOOZHI, VAZHAKKAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. AMINA,** - **W/O.ALAVI HAJI,AGED 50 YEARS, CHELATTINMEL HOUSE, MUNDUMOOZHI, VAZHAKKAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KONDOTTY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. HAFSA,** **D/O.MECHERI MOIDEEN, AGED 19 YEARS, AMBAYIKANDI HOUSE, OLAVATTOOR P.O, KONDOTTY VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 131.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H. JASMINE, R2 BY ADV. SMT.LIJI KUTTAPPAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.3557/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE .A: COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.178/2011 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE .B: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C NO.125/2012 AND 522 OF 2011 IN CRIME NO.178/11 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI. ANNEXURE .C: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13/3/2013 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND FIRST PETITONER.** **ANNEXURE .D: THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECONDRESPONDENT DATED 14/3/2013 IN S.C NO.125/2012 IN CRIME NO.178/11 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI.** **ANNEXURE .E: THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14/3/2013 IN S.C NO.522/2011 IN CRIME NO.178/11 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3557 of 2013 -------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2013** ## **ORDER** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.Nos.125 of 2012 and 522 of 2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Manjeri which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.178 of 2011 of Kondotty Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.Nos.125 of 2012 and 522 of 2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Manjeri pursuant to Annexure-A F.I.R. and Annexure-B Charge Sheet in Crime No.178 of 2011 of Kondotty Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the first petitioner married the de facto complainant, thereafter they were living as husband and wife in the matrimonial house. Crl.M.C.No.3557 of 2013 :-2-: According to her, the petitioner and other accused tortured her mentally on the allegation that the de facto complainant is not a suitable wife to the first petitioner and she was suffering disease etc. Thereafter she had abandoned in her house by the accused. Thus, according to the de facto complainant, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC. The first petitioner/first accused is the former husband of the second respondent and second and third petitioners are the sister and mother of the first petitioner. On completing the investigation, the police preferred a report in Crime No.178 of 2011, based upon which Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram took cognizance and as the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, was a minor, the above case was committed to the Sessions Court and thus S.C.No.522 of 2011 is instituted. When the first petitioner subsequently appeared before the committal court, the case against him was also committed and thus S.C.No.125 of 2012 is also pending against the petitioner. Thus, according to the petitioners, when the above two Sessions Cases are pending, the disputes both matrimonial and Crl.M.C.No.3557 of 2013 :-3-: the criminal dispute are settled and the second respondent/ de facto complainant is divorced by the first petitioner and accordingly they have entered into an agreement as per Annexure-C. The second respondent has sworn into Annexures-D and E affidavits. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them. Crl.M.C.No.3557 of 2013 :-4-: 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition including Annexures-D and E affidavits. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offence involved in the above case is only under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. which is more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offence is involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/ accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Honourable Apex Court, in the Crl.M.C.No.3557 of 2013 :-5-: ## decision reported in **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others** v. **Babita Raghuvanshi and another** [2013 (1) KLD 817(SC)], has held as follows:- “7. 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 ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. 8. 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 Crl.M.C.No.3557 of 2013 :-6-: 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 offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non-compoundable in nature.” “12. 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. 13. 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3557 of 2013 :-7-: 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.” In the present case, the only offence involved is under Section 498A of I.P.C. The criminal proceedings for the said offence originated from the matrimonial issues, which are now settled. Consequently, the parties want a quietus to the criminal case as well. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision will be squarely applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of Crl.M.C.No.3557 of 2013 :-8-: the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Crl.M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A F.I.R. and Annexure-B Charge Sheet in Crime No.178 of 2011 of Kondotty Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.Nos.125 of 2012 and 522 of 2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Manjeri. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj