Aysath Muneera Hameed.T.M. v. Chikkilodancheriya Kooveri Davood and State of Kerala

## **C.R.** IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 1454 of 2017 () --------------------------CC 4834/2016 of J.M.F.C.,THALASSERY CRIME NO. 431/2016 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION , KANNUR ## PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- AYSHATH MUNEERA HAMEED.T.M. 33 YEARS, D/O. HAMEED ARABI MOIDEEN, BAITHUL AMEEN, KANNOTHUMCHAL P.O., THANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) SRI.V.R.NASAR ## RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE: ---------------------------- ## 1. CHIKKILODANCHERIYA KOOVERI DAVOOD 36 YEARS, S/O. BABIKKOVIL UMMERKUTTY, MAIMOONATH HOUSE, TOWN HALL ROAD, CHIRAKKARA P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101. ## 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.C.ARCHANA r2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C. K. PRASAD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-032017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1454 of 2017 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- - A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT OF CRIME NO. 431/2016 OF THE THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR. - A2 : AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT. - A3 : AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ACCUSED/1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------------- // True Copy // PA to Judge ## C.R. ## **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C.No.1454 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7[th] day of March 2017 ## O R D E R The petitioner is the _de-facto complainant_ in C.C. No.4834 of 2016 on the files of the court below. 2. The first respondent is the accused in the said case. The offence alleged against the first respondent as per Annexure 1 final report is the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. ## 3. Heard. 4. Both the petitioner and the first respondent filed Crl.M.C.1454/2017 -: 2 :- separate affidavits stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and hence, they are presently residing together as husband and wife under one roof. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Annexure-I final report cannot be quashed on the application filed by the _de-facto complainant,_ since the offence alleged is not a compoundable offence. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the matter has been settled between the parties and hence, they are now residing together as husband and wife under one roof. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Nathmal Rathi and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (1992 KHC 1478) observed that a duty is cast upon the court to make Crl.M.C.1454/2017 -: 3 :- every endeavour in matrimonial cases, to bring about a reconciliation between the parties, when it appears to the court that there is chance for saving the marriage. The Apex Court further held in Suresh Nathmal Rathi (supra) that both from the personal and social point of view, stability of marriage has certain value and a duty is imposed on every Court to bring about reconciliation between the parties. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [JT 2003(3) SC 277 : AIR 2003 SC 1386] held that the court has a duty to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. The Apex Court further held in B.S. Joshi (supra) that any hyper technical view on the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. would be counter- Crl.M.C.1454/2017 -: 4 :- productive and act against the interest of women and against the object for which the provision was inacted. 8. There may be many reasons for a wife to seek for quashing the proceedings against the husband and her inlaws initiated by her. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his family members and as a result thereof, she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she had willingly parted the company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or for some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance for conviction. Then, it would not be proper to decline to Crl.M.C.1454/2017 -: 5 :- exercise the power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound a non-compoundable offence. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for . any valid reason including lack of _bonafides_ 9. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014 KHC 4195) held that those criminal cases having overwhelingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 10. In this case, the offence alleged against the first respondent is the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and Crl.M.C.1454/2017 -: 6 :- presently, the wife is residing with her husband and other family members. They have filed separate affidavits before this court in this regard. It is true that Section 498A I.P.C. is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of inherent power of quashing. She has already filed an affidavit stating that she is now residing with her husband and his family members after settling the entire disputes with them. Section 498A I.P.C. was added in Chapter XXA of the Indian Penal Code with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to quash the proceedings in exercise of the inherent Crl.M.C.1454/2017 -: 7 :- power if the matter is settled between the parties and if the application is filed with bonafides. There is other likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, irrespective of whether she has started living with her husband settling her disputes with him or whether she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or whether she has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of the parties, it is the duty of the court in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings against the husband and his relatives, if the wife approaches the court seeking for quashing the proceedings against her husband Crl.M.C.1454/2017 -: 8 :- and his relatives. In this case, it was only because the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner is presently residing with the first respondent under one roof that the first respondent has filed the present Crl.M.C. praying for quashing Annexure-A final report and further proceedings against her husband. Even though the present M.C. has been filed by the wife to quash the proceedings under Section 498A I.P.C. initiated against her husband, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash the proceedings against her husband to save the marriage. Any hyper-technical view that the accused himself should approach the court to quash the proceedings pending against him in a matrimonial dispute would be counter-productive. For the said reason, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the final report and Crl.M.C.1454/2017 -: 9 :- further proceedings in this case cannot be quashed as the petitioner herein is only the _de-facto complainant_ and not the accused, cannot be accepted. Having regard to the relevant inputs, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash Annexure-I final report and further proceedings against the first respondent in C.C. No.4834 of 2016 on the files of the court below in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so. In the result, this Crl. M.C. stands allowed. Sd/- **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** _dl/7..3..2017_