CRL.MC No.293 of 2020

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` FRIDAY,THE26[TH]DAYOFMAY2023/5THJYAISHTA,1945 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.293OF2020 ``` ``` AGAINSTCC329/2019OFJUDICIALFIRSTCLASSMAGISTRATECOURT, ``` ## **`PIRAVOM`** ## **`CRIME NO.874/2017 OF PIRAVOM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 4 :`** ``` 1REMANANA.N., AGED59YEARS S/O.LATENARAYANAN,R/ATAZHAKAPPILLILHOUSE, MEMUGHAMKARA,MANEEDVILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHATALUK, ERNAKULAM-686664(ISTACCUSED) 2REMYAMOL AGED33YEARS D/O.RAMAN,R/ATAZHAKAPPILLILHOUSE, MEMUGHAMKARA,MANEEDVILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHATALUK,ERNAKULAM-686664(4THACCUSED) BYADVS. T.S.MAYA(THIYADIL) SRI.K.RAJEEV(THIYADIL) SMT.K.A.SUNITHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURTOFKERALA. (THESUBINSPECTOROFPOLICE, PIRAVAMPOLICESTATION,),PIN-686664. 2RENJUE.V. AGED37YEARS EDACHERILHOUSE,KANAYANNURP.O., CHOTTANIKKARA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682312. BYADVSRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 26.05.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.293 of 2020 2 ## **ORDER** The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 4 in Crime No.874 of 2017 of the Piravom Police Station. The aforesaid case has arisen from a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. After investigation, final report has been laid before the jurisdictional court, and the case is pending as CC No.329/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom. 3. The prosecution allegation is that the 2nd respondent married the 2nd petitioner on 30.01.2011, and the same was registered at the Maneed SNDP Yogam. It is stated that the accused forged the marriage register to make it appear that 420 gms of gold were handed over at the time of marriage instead of 120 grams of gold. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the party respondent submitted that numerous litigations were pending before various courts and now good sense has prevailed and they have decided to separate ways. A settlement has been arrived at and a joint divorce petition Crl.M.C No.293 of 2020 3 has been filed. Reliance is also placed on Annexure-A12 affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent to substantiate that he has no further grievance and that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings. 5. When the matter had come up for admission, this court had directed the investigating officer concerned to record the statement of the defacto complainant/injured/victim and report as to whether the assertion in the petition and the affidavit filed in support that entire disputes have been resolved between the parties concerned is true and genuine. The investigating officer was also directed to report as to whether the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents and whether there is any other impediment in terminating the criminal proceedings. 6. The learned public prosecutor submitted that no other transgressions or complaints stand registered against the petitioners hitherto. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally expressed that he harbors no enduring grievances. 7. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. Crl.M.C No.293 of 2020 4 8. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** , a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** , **State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat[4]** , **State of M.P. v. Deepak[5] , State of M.P. v. Manish[6]** , **J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup[7]** ; **State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh[8]** , **Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat[9] , State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh[10] and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar[11]** . It was laid down as under: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 > 4 (2014) 4 SCC 149 > 5 (2014) 10 SCC 285 > 6 (2015) 8 SCC 307 > 7 2016) 12 SCC 179 > 8 (2016) 12 SCC 471 > 9 (2017) 9 SCC 641 > 10 (2019) 4 SCC 268 > 11 (2019) 5 SCC 570] Crl.M.C No.293 of 2020 5 out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; - 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; - 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the Crl.M.C No.293 of 2020 6 sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc. 9. Having carefully analyzed the nature of the allegations, Crl.M.C No.293 of 2020 7 the gravity of the offense, the relationship between the parties and the antecedents of the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that the quashing of proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on the society and it would only inure to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction are bleak. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.874 of 2017 of the Piravom Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.329/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** NS Crl.M.C No.293 of 2020 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 293/2020`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES: ``` |`ANNEXURE `|`1`|`THE ATTESTED COPY OF FIR NO.874/2017 OF`| |---|---|---| |||`PIRAVOM POLICE STATION DATED 25.07.2017`| |`ANNEXURE `|`2`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF CMP 1468/2017 FILED BY`| |||`THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM COURT`| |||`PIRAVOM.`| |`ANNEXURE `|`3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 15.2.2019.`| |`ANNEXURE `|`4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND`| |||`PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED`| |||`12.4.2016.`| |`ANNEXURE `|`5`|`TRUE COPY OF OP 1032/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE`| |||`FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT`| |||`AGAINST 2ND PETITIONER FOR DIVORCE.`| |`ANNEXURE `|`6`|`TRUE COPY OF OP 1374/2016 (G&W) PENDING BEFORE`| |||`THE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM FILED BY 2ND`| |||`RESPONDENT AGAINST 2ND PETITIONER.`| |`ANNEXURE `|`7`|`TRUE COPY OF OP 818/2017 WITH 2 DOCUMENTS`| |||`FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AGAINST THE 2ND`| |||`RESPONDENT AND HIS MOTHER FOR RECOVERY OF`| |||`MONEY AND GOLD ORNAMENTS.`| |`ANNEXURE `|`8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND`| |||`RESPONDENT IN OP 818/2017.`| |`ANNEXURE `|`9`|`TRUE COY OF CMP 1778/2017 FILED BY THE 2ND`| |||`RESPONDENT IN MC 8/2017 BEFORE JFMC`| |||`CHOTTANIKKARA FOR DNA TEST.`| |`ANNEXURE `|`10`|`OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN CMP`| |||`1778/2017.`| |`Annexure `|`A-11`|`MUTUAL DIVORCE PETITION OP 3071/2022 PENDING`| |||`BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE`| |||`SECOND PETITIONER AND SECOND RESPONDENT.`| |`Annexure `|`A-12`|`NO OBJECTION AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND`| |||`RESPONDENT DATED 31-1-2023`|