Aneesh B., Bhaskar Nair and K. Indiira Devi v. State of Kerala and Megha Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/30TH PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 1329 of 2013 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 128/2012 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------ 1. ANEESH B., AGED 31 YEARS S/O.P.BHASKARAN NAIR, “DRISHYA”, A.K.G. ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O, KOCHI-682024. 2. BHASKARAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 68 YEARS, “DRISHYA”, A.K.G. ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O, KOCHI-682024. 3. K.INDIIRA DEVI, W/O. BHASKARAN NAIR AGED 58 YEARS “DRISHYA”, A.K.G. ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O, KOCHI-682024. BY ADV. SMT.C.S.SHEEJA ## RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT(S): -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MEGHA MENON S., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.C.SANKARANKUTTY MENON CHAKKANATTU HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O KOCHI-682503 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY T.M.RAMAN KARTHA R2 BY ADV. SMT.MANJU R.KARTHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.1329/13 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: - ANNEXURE-A:CERTIFICED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.128/12 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ALUVA. - ANNEXURE B:TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION REPORT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - ANNEXURE-C:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2012 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// ## P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1329 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in crime No.128 of 2012 of Kalamassery Police Station. First petitioner and second respondent were husband and wife. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner. Matrimonial disharmony and conflicts during the subsistence of the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent and joining in the said issue by respondents 2 and 3 compelled the second respondent to file a private complaint viz., CMP.No.119 of 2012 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under sections 406, 420 and 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure- A is the FIR registered in crime No.128 of 2012 of Kalamassery Police Station pursuant to the receipt of the complaint forwarded for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-C order dated 11.12.2012 **Crl.M.C.No.1329/13** 2 in O.P.No.2210 of 2012 of the Family Court, Ernakulam would reveal that the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. That was allowed subsequent to a mediation talk and the consequential settlement arrived at between the parties, as is obvious from Annexure-C. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that in terms of the settlement at Annexure-B, the second respondent has settled the entire disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime in respect of which Annexure-A FIR was registered and that she got no objection in quashing Annexure-A FIR in crime No.128 of 2012 of Kalamassery Police Station and also all further proceedings pursuant thereto, as against the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. True that an offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the decision **Crl.M.C.No.1329/13** 3 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 behind introduction of Section 498A, it was further held. Going by the decision, the fact that Section 498A is noncompoundable and the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. prohibits compounding of any offence except otherwise than in terms of the provisions under that section 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. In such circumstances, when the wife had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime with her husband and his relatives and decided to settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and such eventuality would certainly defeat **Crl.M.C.No.1329/13** 4 the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. The subsequent developments as mentioned above in this case, have made continuance of proceedings in crime No.128 of 2012 against the petitioners absolutely unnecessary. In such circumstances, 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 duty of this Court to terminate such unnecessary proceedings. In the said circumstances, it is evident that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners based on Annexure-A FIR and continuance of such criminal proceedings would ultimately result in sheer wasting of the invaluable time of the court. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A FIR in crime No.128 of 2012 of Kalamassery Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.No.1329/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **Crl.M.C.No.1329/13** 6