ANEESH JOSEPH, A.M. JOSEPH, JASEENTHA JOSEPH, V.J.MATHEW, BINDU JOSEPH v STATE OF KERALA and JOSEPH JOSEPH

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/20TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 958 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------** **CC 494/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, ETTUMANUR -----------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** - **---------------------------------------** **1. ANEESH JOSEPH, ATTAYIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, ETTUMANOOR KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 10101 BROOKE AVE CHATSWORTH CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.J.MATHEW, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM ATHIRAMPUZHAS P.O. ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2. A.M. JOSEPH, ATTAYIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 10101 BROOKE AVE CHATSWORTH CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.J.MATHEW , VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM ATHIRAMPUZHAS P.O. ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **3. JASEENTHA JOSEPH, ATTAYIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, ETTUMANOOR KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 10101 BROOKE AVE CHATSWORTH CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.J.MATHEW, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM ATHIRAMPUZHAS P.O. ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **4. V.J.MATHEW, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM ATHIRAMPUZHAS P.O. ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **5. BINDU JOSEPH, WIFE OF V.J.MATHEW, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM ATHIRAMPUZHAS P.O. ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 958 of 2013 ()** ## **COMPLAINANT(S/COMPLAINANT** ## **-----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE LPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.** **2. JOSEPH JOSEPH, SON OF JOSEPH, VELLAMTHADATHIL HOUS, MARIKA P.O., KOTHATTUKULAM, PIN-682 315.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 958 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **ANNEXURE-A1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2-5-2011 CMP.NO.1236/2011 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I ETTUMANOOR.** **ANNEXURE-A2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-10-2011 WPC. NO.25618/2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE-A3- TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT FIR NO.422/2011 DATED 2-5-2011 AND FINAL REPORT OF THE POLICE DATED 17-12-2011.** **ANNEXURE-A4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-1-2013 IN CASE NO. PDO 051794 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTRY OF LOS ANGLES.** **ANNEXURE-A5- TRUE COPY OF THE WITHDRAWL APPLICATION DATED 27-11-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT ETTUMANOOR IN CC.NO.494/2011.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** ## **NIL.** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **P.S.TO JUDGE** ## **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 958 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.494 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor, which is a case instituted upon the report of the Police in Crime No.422 of 2011 of the Ettumanoor Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 405,406,323,324,498A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The second respondent herein initially approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor by filing CMP No.1236 of 2011, which is a private complaint and the same was sent to the Ettumanoor Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of which, the above crime was registered and on completing the investigation, they preferred a report. Accordingly, C.C.No.494 of 2011 was instituted in the trial court. The petitioners now preferred this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of the CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 :-2-: Cr.P.C. on the ground that the matter is settled between the parties to the dispute and therefore, seeks an order from this Court to quash all proceedings in C.C.No.494 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. As the matter is settled out of court between the parties, according to me, this Court need not go into the detailed facts of the case. However, it can be seen that the entire criminal proceedings are initiated at the instance of the second respondent connected with the matrimonial dispute arose between the first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent, who is the wife of the first petitioner. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the strength of Annexure A4 judgment of a foreign court, the dispute between the first petitioner and his wife, who is the daughter of the second respondent is settled CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 :-3-: forever and therefore, there is no meaning in proceeding with the trial of the case pending before the trial court. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also admitted about the settlement arrived into between the first petitioner and his former wife, who is the daughter of the second respondent. The learned counsel for the second respondent also invited my attention to Annexure A5 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent. 5. I have gone through the above affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is specifically stated that the first petitioner married the daughter of the second respondent on 30.10.2009 and due to difference of opinion, the marriage was irretrievably broken and as part of the said dispute, he preferred a complaint before the court which resulted in C.C.No.494 of 2011. In para 3 of the affidavit, it is specifically stated that the dispute between the first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent has already been settled and on that basis, a divorce decree has been passed by the superior court of State of CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 :-4-: California, County of Los Angeles. From the statement, it is further clear that as per the settlement, parties are agreed to settle all disputes between them and accordingly, a joint application was filed to withdraw C.C.No.494 of 2011. 5. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, it can be seen that though non-compoundable offences are involved, all such offences alleged are as a part of the criminal proceedings initiated by the second respondent connected with the matrimonial disputes between the first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108] and **Jitendra** v. **Raghuvanshi and Others Babita Raghuvanshi and another** [2013 (1) KLD 817 (SC)] which are squarely applicable in the present case. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 :-5-: _“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, 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_ ## CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 ## :-6-: _this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, 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 **Jitendra Raghuvanshi's case,** the Apex Court 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._ CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 ## :-7-: _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 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 noncompoundable, 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_ CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 :-8-: _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 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.”_ According to me, considering the facts and circumstances involved in the present case, the dictum laid down therein is attracted in the present case and therefore, following the above decision, this Crl.M.C. can be disposed of, particularly when, even if the parties are directed to face the trial, there would not be any fruitful turnout and the net CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 :-9-: result would be sheer waste of time of the court below. In the result, this Criminal M.C. is allowed quashing all proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.494 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 :-10-: **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . CRL.A.No. OF 2003 **JUDGMENT** CRL.M.C.NO. 958 of 2013 :-11-: Dated:.2012