Aneesh P.V., Vineesh P.V., Chandravathi and Sreedharan v. Preetha V.V. and The State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/18TH CHAITHRA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1410 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------CC.560/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 169/2012 OF CHITTARIKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** ## **----------------------------** **1. ANEESH P.V. AGED 28 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, PANDARATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, BEDOOR PERUMBATTA.P.O., CHERUVATHUR (VIA), HOSDURG KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **2. VINEESH.P.V., AGED 26 YEARS** - **S/O.SREEDAHRAN, PANDARATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, BEDOOR PERUMBATTA.P.O., CHERUVATHUR (VIA), HOSDURG KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **3. CHANDRAVATHI, AGED 46 YEARS** - **W/O.SREEDAHRAN, PANDARATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, BEDOOR PERUMBATTA.P.O., CHERUVATHUR (VIA), HOSDURG KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **4. SREEDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS** - **S/O.ACHAYAMMER (LATE), PANDARATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE BEDOOR, PERUMBATTA.P.O., CHERUVATHUR (VIA) HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.R.REKESH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **1. PREETHA V.V., AGED 22 YEARS D/O.KARUNAKARAN.K, VALIYA VEETTIL (H), BEDOOR PERUMBATTA.P.O., CHERUVATHUR (VIA), HOSDURG KASARGOD.** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1410 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & CHARGE IN CRIME NO.169 OF 2012 CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **dlk** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1410 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 8[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the investigation in crime No.169 of 2012 of Chittarikkal Police Station, the name of the second petitioner was deleted from the array of accused and Crl.M.A.No.3005 of 2013 has been filed in this petition for deleting the name of the second petitioner from the party array. In the circumstances, Crl.M.A.No.3005 of 2013 is allowed. Registry shall carry out appropriate corrections. Still, for the sake of avoiding a possible confusion the parties are being referred to hereafter in the manner originally set out. 2. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are accused in C.C.No. 560 of 2012 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg arising from crime No.169 of 2012 of Chittarikkal Police **Crl.M.C.1410/13** 2 Station. The said crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, against them at the instance of the first respondent. The first petitioner and the first respondent are man and wife. Petitioners 3 and 4 are the parents of the first petitioner. Essentially, it is the matrimonial conflicts and disharmony that constrained the first respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioners. This petition has been filed seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No. 560 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg. On 1.4.2013, this Court passed an order directing the first respondent to appear in person to ascertain whether she had actually filed Annexure-II affidavit and whether her decision to compromise the case involved in C.C.No.560 of 2012 has been taken on her own volition. The first respondent was identified by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as the person who executed the vakalath. Endorsing the submission made by her counsel the first respondent submitted that the disputes which led to the registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled and in the light of the settlement arrived at between herself and the petitioners, she did not **Crl.M.C.1410/13** 3 wish to pursue with the prosecution against the petitioners. True that an offence under section 498A IPC is not compoundable in terms of the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C. However, in the decision in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)),** taking into account the very 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 concerned on settling the issues that led to the lodging of the complaint wants to settle in 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 non-compoundable 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. Having perused AnnexureII and after hearing the first respondent in person and taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the **Crl.M.C.1410/13** 4 petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, I am of the view that continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners based on Annexure-I FIR in crime No. 169 of 2012 of Chittarikkal Police Station is liable to be terminated lest it would disable the first respondent in settling in her life. Evidently, the first respondent wanted to settle and infact, settled the disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime which is now pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg in C.C.No. 560 of 2012 with a view to settle in her life. In such circumstances, compelling continuance of criminal proceedings against petitioners 1, 3 and 4 would virtually prevent the first respondent from settling in her life after settling the disputes with the petitioners. I am of the view that to secure ends of justice, it is only appropriate to act upon Annexure-II affidavit sworn in by the first respondent to allow her to settle in her life peacefully. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-I final report laid in crime No.169 of 2012 of Chittarikkal Police Station and the FIR registered in that crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.560 of 2012 pending **Crl.M.C.1410/13** 5 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg are hereby quashed. **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** **(JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1410/13** 6 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **Crl.M.C.1410/13** 7