CRL.M.C. No. 1380 of 2013

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/4TH CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1380 of 2013 () --------------------------CC.497/2011 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED IN CC NO. 497 OF 2011: -------------------------------------------------------- ## 1. K.V.SABU, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUMARAMKUNNEL HOUSE, H.NO.12/575 NETTOR P. O, MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM ## 2. RIJO MANUEL S/O.MANUEL, PUTHUPADIKKAL HOUSE, ELAPPALY ARAKKULAM, MULAMATTAM ,IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT(S) IN 497 OF 2011: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ## 1. SMITHA, AGED 32 YEARS W/O.SABU, KUMARAMKUNNEL HOUSE, H NO 12/525C, NETTOR P. O MARADU VILAGE, ERNAKUAM DIST-682304 ## 2. STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.VIMALRAJ R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1380 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------- - ANNEX.A:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 497 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM. - ANNEX.B:A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT OF MEDIATION VIDE REFERENCE MADE BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM IN MC. 32 OF 2012 (MP NO. 282 OF 2011). - ANNEX.C:AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT. ## RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1380 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and first respondent are husband and wife. Second petitioner is the friend of the first petitioner. Matrimonial disharmony and conflicts between the first petitioner and the first respondent and joining in the said issue by the second petitioner are allegedly the reasons that compelled the first respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under section 498A, 323, 354 and 506(1) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.206 of 2011 of Panangad Police Station was registered based on her complaint and Annexure-A is the final report laid in the said crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-A final report laid in the said crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.497 of 2011 on the files of the Court of Additional Chief **Crl.M.C.1380/13** 2 Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on the ground that the entire issues and disputes that constrained the first respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioners have been settled amicably. It is further stated that after compromising the marital discord, the first petitioner and the first respondent have now taken a decision to reside together, peacefully. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perusing Annexure-B agreement arrived at between the first petitioner and first respondent it leaves no doubt regarding the fact that the entire issues had been settled amicably and that the first petitioner and the first respondent have decided to preserve the institution of marriage. It is to also to be noted that going by the very provisions under section 498A, IPC there is absolutely no reason for alleging commission of the offence under section 498A against the second petitioner who is only a friend of the first petitioner, the husband of the first respondent. True that an offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. At the **Crl.M.C.1380/13** 3 same time, it is to be noted that in the decision in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)),** taking into account the 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 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 noncompoundable 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. In such circumstances, when the wife had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime with her husband and decided to settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the **Crl.M.C.1380/13** 4 proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and such eventuality it would certainly defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. The subsequent developments, as mentioned above, have made continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.497 of 2011 on the files of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam against the petitioners absolutely unnecessary. I am of the view that compelling its continuance would put the matrimonial tie between the first petitioner and the first respondent in astringent. When the attempt of the parties is to preserve and protect the institution of marriage, this Court has a duty to create a conducive situation for the couple concerned to succeed in their attempt. In such circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** reported in **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC),** it is the duty of this Court to terminate such unnecessary proceedings. In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. Annexure-A final report laid in crime No.206 of 2011 and all proceedings pursuant thereto in **Crl.M.C.1380/13** 5 C.C.No.497 of 2011 pending against the petitioners before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1380/13** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.1380/13** 7