Crl.M.C. No.1236 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.14 of 2010 and all further proceedings in CC No.538/2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Azad
Maria
Farhana
Mohammed

Respondents

State of Kerala
Shafina

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C.V. Manuvilsan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sunil Nair Palakkat (Adv.), for Shafina
• Public Prosecutor Smt. S. Hyma, for State

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case in the Kerala High Court concerning quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against a husband and relatives arising from matrimonial discord. Petitioners Azad, Maria, Farhana and Mohammed faced allegations under 498A read with 34 IPC in FIR No.14 of 2010 at Tirur Police Station; the case is pending as CC No.538/2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur. The second respondent, Shafina, lodged the complaint alleging cruelty and dowry-demand; the FIR and final report are the subject of the quashing petition. The petitioners contend that the matrimonial disputes have been settled amicably and the parties have agreed to part ways, rendering continuation of proceedings unnecessary. The court notes that Section 498A is non-compoundable, but relies on Supreme Court authority that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can terminate proceedings in appropriate cases to honor the settlement and ensure ends of justice. Citing B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, the court concludes that it is the duty of the High Court to terminate such unnecessary proceedings when the lis has been settled. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.14/2010, the final report, and further proceedings in CC No.538/2011 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A IPCSection 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.Section 320 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in appropriate cases.
Non-compoundability of Section 498A does not bar exercise of 482 Cr.P.C. where settlement warrants termination of proceedings.
High Court guidance from B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (SC) supporting quashing in matrimonial settlements.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (SC) recognizing that quashing may be appropriate to give effect to settlement and ends of justice.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled and they have parted ways. They rely on the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate proceedings when continued litigation would frustrate the settlement and the ends of justice, citing B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh to justify quashing the FIR and final report in view of the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement but emphasize that 498A is non‑compoundable. They concede the lis has been resolved but contend that the court must exercise caution and consider public policy, the seriousness of 498A offences, and the welfare of the complainant. They rely on established principles to determine whether quashing is appropriate under inherent powers.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	The decision is cited to support exercise of inherent power under 482 Cr.P.C. to quash when parties settle matrimonial issues and continue would undermine ends of justice.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	The decision is cited to justify terminating unnecessary proceedings when the lis is settled, aligning with the court’s order to quash.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/23RD PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 1236 of 2013 () --------------------------- CC.538/2011 of J.M.F.C.,TIRUR CRIME NO. 14/2010 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 -4: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. AZAD, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED, PULAK HOUSE - P.O. PUTHUPALLI, PUTHUPALLI AMSOM DESOM, MEPPADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MARIA,AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. MOHAMMED, PULAK HOUSE P.O. PUTHUPALLI, PUTHUPALLI AMSOM DESOM, MEPPADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. FARHANA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. MOHAMMED, PULAK HOUSE P.O. PUTHUPALLI, PUTHUPALLI AMSOM DESOM, MEPPADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MOHAMMED, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU MOHAMMED, PULAK HOUSE P.O. PUTHUPALLI, PUTHUPALLI AMSOM DESOM, MEPPADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, TIRUR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 ## 2. SHAFINA AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. KAMMUKUTTY RESIDING AT KUTTY KATTIL HOUSE P.O., THIRUNAVAYA EDAKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 301. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.1236/13 ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1:A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.14 OF 2010 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2:A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.14 OF 2010 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A3:A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES. ANNEXURE A4:A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** ## **========================== CRL.M.C. No.1236 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. Petitioners 2 and 4 are the parents of the first petitioner. Third petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner. It is the marital discord and constant bickering between the first petitioner and the second respondent and joining in the issues by the other petitioners that constrained the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.14 of 2010 of Tirur Police Station was registered based on her complaint. AnnexureA1 is the FIR registered based on the said complaint. After investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was laid in the aforesaid crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report laid in the aforesaid crime which is now pending as C.C.No.538 **Crl.M.C.1236/13** 2 of 2011 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur on the ground that the entire issues that constrained the second respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioners that resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled amicably. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The second respondent has now filed Annexure-A4 affidavit, in this case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent and Annexure-A4 affidavit would reveal that the lis involved in this case has been compromised and settled between the second respondent and the petitioners. It is further evident that as part of the settlement arrived at between the first petitioner and second respondent, they have decided to part their ways. It is thus evident and also admitted that it is essentially the matrimonial disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime **.** and that they have been settled amicably between the parties 3. True that an offence under Section 498A is not **Crl.M.C.1236/13** 3 compoundable. At the 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 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 his relatives and decided to settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife **Crl.M.C.1236/13** 4 from settling in her life and such eventuality 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.538 of 2011 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur absolutely unnecessary. 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-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report laid in crime No.14 of 2010 of Tirur Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.538 of 2011 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1236/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **Crl.M.C.1236/13** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**