Baby T.V. v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2721 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO.251/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, ALUVA ----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **------------------------------------------** **BABY T.V, D/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, VALIYA VALLAMTHURUTH KARA, CHENDAMANGALAM, PARAVUR TALUK-683 512.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.** **2. SELVARAJAN.S, S/O SUBAYYA,AGED 47 YEARS, EDAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, JUBILEE ROAD, PATTERIPPURAM, ALUVA-683 101.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY SRI.V.V.SADANANDAN (SREEMOOLANAGARAM)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 2721 of 2013 () ---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------------------------** **ANNEX-A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.900 OF 2011 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ALUVA ANNEX-A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.812 OF 2011 OF THE CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ANNEX-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 13B PETITION DATED 23.3.2013 FILED BY THE PETITONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2721 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 4[th] day of July, 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 petitioner, who is an accused in C.C.No.251/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva which is a case instituted upon the police report for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.251 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner wife of the second respondent assaulted her husband during night on 14/10/2011 by pouring water on him while he was asleep and kicked him in the abdomen and fisted him and thereby she committed the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court and they have decided to divorce mutually under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Annexure-A3 is **Crl.M.C. No. 2721 of 2013** 2 the joint petition filed for divorce. Crl.M.A.No.5369/2013 is a compounding petition filed under Section 320(5) of IPC r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C which is singed by the petitioner as well as the second respondent, defacto complainant and counter signed by the respective counsels. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute 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. I have verified the documents including the compounding petition. 5. The learned counsel for the second 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against her. **Crl.M.C. No. 2721 of 2013** 3 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. 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 offences involved in the above case are only Sections 323 of I.P.C., which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)]. In which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- **Crl.M.C. No. 2721 of 2013** 4 _“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 pre-dominatingly 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 this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender_ **Crl.M.C. No. 2721 of 2013** 5 _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........”_ 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 is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage 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 the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing 6 ## **Crl.M.C. No. 2721 of 2013** Annexure-A1 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.251/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS