CRL.M.C. Nos. 1160/2013, 1300/2013 and 1366/2013; Sindhu A.K. v. Anoop Krishnan & Others (High Court of Kerala)

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1160 of 2013 () --------------------------CP.2/2013 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM DATED CRIME NO. 721/2011 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SINDHU A.K., AGED 43 YEARS D/O.KUNJUNNI A.M, RESIDING AT H.NO.182 HARINAGAR MAIN STREET POONKUNNAM P.O, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKER ## RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S) & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1.ANOOP KRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KAROOTTILKIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. - 2.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMANAN, KARULLIKIZHAKKETHIL, PERINGALA KAYAMKULAM. - 3.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2013 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NOS.1300 & 1366 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.NO.1160/13 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: A1:TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.11.2008. A2:TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.5.2012. - A3:TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION FOR DIVORCE FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TRISSUR AS O.P.NO.922/2012. - A4:TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN B.A.NO.3139/2012 DATED 18.5.2012. A5:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO.3139/2012 DATED 4.6.2012. - A6:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF FAMILY COURT, TRISSUR IN O.P.NO.922/2012 DATED 11.6.2012. A7:TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.7.2012. A8:TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 3.7.2012. - A9:TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 9.1.2013 FILED AS C.P.NO.2/2013 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. Nos. 1160, 1300 & 1366 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 10[th ] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** Crl.M.C.Nos.1160 and 1366 of 2013 are moved by the same petitioner who is the divorced wife of the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1300 of 2013. Admittedly, it is the marital discord and disharmony and bickering between the petitioners in these petitions that led to the registration of crime Nos. 721 of 2011 of Kayamkulam Police Station, 147 of 2011 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur and 204 of 2010 of Kurathikad Police Station respectively in the captioned petitions. On account of the commonness of the parties and the intrinsically intertwined factual matrix, on consent, these matters are taken up for joint consideration and disposal. 2. At the very outset, it is to be noted from the pleadings **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 2 especially the affidavits filed in these petitions that the aforesaid crimes were caused to be registered against each other by the petitioners as a parthian shot. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to hereinafter in this order according to their status in Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2013. In Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2013, petitioner is the divorced wife of the first respondent. The first respondent is the defacto complainant who caused registration of Crime No.721 of 2011 at Kayamkulam Police Station, alleging commission of offences under sections 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 341, 323, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and her co-accused. In Crl.M.C No.1366 of 2013, the first respondent caused registration of Crime No.204 of 2010 of Kurathikad Police Station alleging commission of offences under sections 436, 120(B) and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and her co-accused. Her co-accused in crime No.204 of 2012 of Kurathikad Police Station moved I.A.No.2913 of 2013 in Crl.M.C.No.1366 of 2013 seeking for their impleadment in that case. The said I.A was taken up and **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 3 considered along with the miscellaneous case and taking into account the lack of objection for their impleadment they are impleaded respectively as additional respondents 3 to 5 in Crl.M.C.No.1366 of 2013. The registry shall carry out appropriate corrections in the cause title in Crl.M.C.No.1366 of 2013. The petitioner filed the Crl.M.C.Nos.1160 of 2013 and 1366 of 2013 seeking quashment of all further proceedings respectively in C.P.No.2 of 2013 pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam and in C.P.No.11 of 2013 pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara. Crl.M.C.No.1300 of 2013 has been filed by the first respondent who is the former husband of the petitioner. He filed the same seeking quashment of Annexure-A1 charge sheet laid in crime No.147 of 2011 of Town East Police Station and all further proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.268 of 2011 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur. Crime No.147 of 2011 was registered at the instance of the petitioner (2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C.1300 of 2013) alleging commission of offences under Sections **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 4 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal code. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in these petitions and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. As mentioned hereinbefore, admittedly, it is the matrimonial disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crimes involved in these cases. In all the aforesaid crimes, after completion of investigation, final reports were laid before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In respect of the crimes involved in Crl.M.C.Nos 1160 and 1366 of 2013, pursuant to the laying of the final reports committal proceedings are pending against the accused therein, including the petitioner as mentioned hereinbefore. In respect of the first respondent viz., the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1300 of 2013 cognizance was taken on the final report laid in Crime No.147 of 2011 of Thrissur Town Police Station and it is now pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur as C.C.No.268 of 2011. In view of **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 5 the present position obtained in these cases, I do not think that this Court should delve into the facts or contentions, in detail. Evidently, the parties have arrived at a settlement with respect to the entire disputes involved in these cases that constrained each of them to lodge complaint against each other which ultimately resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crimes. The recital in the affidavits annexed to these petitions and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties for and on behalf of the respective private parties would undoubtedly show that the entire lis that led to the registration of the aforesaid crimes have been settled amicably and in terms of the settlement so arrived at between them, the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the first respondent viz., Sindhu A.K. and Anoop Krishnan was already been dissolved. It is also submitted that subsequent to the dissolution of their marriage, Anoop Krishnan, the first respondent got remarried. It is thus evident that the settlement has been arrived at and the parties wanted to settle the issues with each other with a view to settle in their lives. **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 6 5. Evidently, a perusal of the final reports laid in the aforesaid crimes would reveal that the accusation against the respective accused also include allegation of commission of non-compoundable offecnces. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)),** the fact that noncompoundable offences are also included in the concerned FIR cannot, by itself, be a reason for declining the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in a case which otherwise calls for its invocation. It is also held that the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C. would not and could not limit or affect the exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. In short, the question to be considered is whether in the facts and circumstances of the cases, invocation of the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is justifiable. It is essentially the matrimonial disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crimes and the parties have amicably settled the entire disputes. They have already parted their ways and **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 7 have virtually settled in their lives. 6. I have already adverted to the alleged offences involved in these cases. True that commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 341, 324, 326, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. are allegedly involved. In the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC))** and **Dimpey Gujral and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2013 (1) KLD 66 (SC))** involvement of such offences by itself cannot be a ground for declining the exercise of inherent jurisdiction especially when basically the issue involved is one related to matrimonial disputes. In **Gian Singh's case** (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines 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 proceedings or complaint or F.I.R. may be **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 8 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 was held therein. In **Dimpy Gujral's** case (supra) the allegation of commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC was also involved. In the aforesaid decisions, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that criminal cases arising out of matrimony related disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and when the parties have resolved their entire disputes it would only be appropriate for the High Courts to quash the proceedings if in its view, on account of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction would be very remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put the 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. The Apex Court held that in such circumstances, the High Courts have to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 9 proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put to an end to the criminal case and if the answer to the above question/questions is in the affirmative, the High Courts would be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. As noticed hereinbefore, essentially it is the discordancy and disharmony in the matrimonial tie between the petitioner and the first respondent that ultimately resulted in the commission of the aforesaid offences and registration of the aforesaid crimes. Evidently, full and complete settlement and compromise have been arrived at between the parties. Apart from the petitioner the other accused involved in the respective crimes are either the relative of the petitioner or the relative of the first respondent. The wrong in all these crimes involved in these cases are basically private and personal in nature and undoubtedly on account of the compromise entered into between the parties, evident from the affidavits annexed to these **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 10 petitions, there can be little doubt that the possibility of conviction of the concerned accused involved in the aforementioned crimes is very remote and bleak. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that sending the parties concerned in these cases to trial would be a wasteful exercise. In the totality of the circumstances I am of the view that the captioned miscellaneous cases call for invocation of the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P,.C. and to secure the ends of justice it is only appropriate to terminate the respective criminal proceedings involved in the said cases. In the result, these petitions are disposed of as hereunder:- ## Crl.M.C.No.1160 of 2013 This petition is allowed. Annexure-A9 final report laid in crime No.721 of 2011 of Kayamkulam Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.P.No.2 of 2013 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam are hereby quashed. **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 11 ## Crl.M.C.No.1300 of 2013 This petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 charge sheet laid in crime No.147 of 2011 of East Town Police Station, Thrissur and all further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.268 of 2011 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur are hereby quashed. ## Crl.M.C.No.1366 of 2013 This petition is allowed. Annexure-A9 charge sheet laid in crime No.204 of 2010 of Kurathikad Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.P.No.11 of 2013 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara are hereby quashed. ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 12 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **Crl.M.C.1160, 1300 & 1366/13** 13 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**