Binitha v. Chandrika @ Mani and The State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3252 of 2013** **-----------------------------------** ## **C.C.NO. 64/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, CHENGANNUR CRIME NO. 1557/2012 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA** **---------------** ## **PETITIONERS :** **----------------------** **BINITHA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.AJAY, CHARUVIL HOUSE, KARAKKADU MURI, MULAKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYARAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **-------------------------** **1. CHANDRIKA @ MANI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, ARUN NIVAS, KARAKKADU MURI, MULAKUZH VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK - 689 121.** ## **2. KERALA STATE,** **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 3252 of 2013** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **---------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE- I : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE. ANNEXURE- II : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.52 OF 2011.** **ANNEXURE-III : TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT CERTIFIED COPIES OF F.I.R. AND DEPOSITION OF WITNESSES.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE R2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKKUZHA.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.3252 of 2013 .................................................. Dated this the 2[nd] day of June, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.64/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the first respondent herein, who is none other than the sister-in-law of the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.5006/2012 as a private complaint against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was forwarded to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code and crime was registered as Crime No.1557/2012 of Chengannur police station and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.64/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. Since it is a civil dispute, according to the petitioner, the police should not have charge sheeted the petitioner as she claims that her husband is in possession of the property on the Crl.M.C.No.3252 of 2013 2 basis of an agreement to sell and a civil suit has been filed. It is purely a civil dispute and it is only an abuse of process of law. So she has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief originally. For these and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings and to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.64/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. Other appropriate reliefs may be also allowed to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 3. After the filing of this petition, the first respondent appeared and due to intervention of some relatives, now the matter has been settled between the parties and the first respondent through counsel filed Crl.M.A.No.5139/2014 to accept the affidavit of the defacto complainant whereby she had agreed to withdraw the criminal prosecution against her sister-in-law. Accordingly, the affidavit was accepted by allowing Cr.MA.No.5139/2014. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] 3 Crl.M.C.No.3252 of 2013 respondent. 5. Both the counsel submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a compoundable offence and they can approach the court below itself. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the sister-inlaw of the first respondent and the first respondent is having property which according to the petitioner has been given in possession on the basis of an agreement to sell entered into between the husband of the petitioner and the first respondent and since the husband of the petitioner is in abroad, she is in possession and management of the property on behalf of her husband and when two rubber trees were cut from the property, the criminal proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent which ended in filing of Annexure-III final report which was taken on file as C.C.No.64/2013 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. It is also in a way admitted that there is a civil proceeding also in respect of the same property. Now the first respondent had filed an affidavit stating that the present issue between the petitioner Crl.M.C.No.3252 of 2013 4 and the first respondent in respect of the criminal proceedings has been amicably settled due to intervention of family members and relatives and she does not want to proceed with the criminal prosecution against the petitioner. Further the offences alleged are compoundable in nature as well. However, considering the fact that this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings and filed an affidavit expressing her willingness to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement, this Court feels that instead of sending the matter to the court below, the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings can be exercised by this Court. Further, it is being a family dispute in respect of property which has been settled between the parties in view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [2012 (4) KLT 108(SC)], this Court feels that the affidavit filed by the first respondent can be accepted and further proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code. 7. So the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the further proceedings in C.C.No.64/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur as Crl.M.C.No.3252 of 2013 5 against the petitioner is quashed accepting the composition filed by the first respondent in the form of an affidavit before this Court. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action in this regard. ## **Sd/-** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.3252 of 2013 6