High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; the two proceedings stand quashed and ...

Crl.M.C.No.830 of 2019 & Crl.M.C.No.1991 of 2019, High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.830/2019; Crl.M.C.No.1991/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date
2019-07-11
Court Decision / Holding
The court allowed both Crl.M.C. Nos. 830/2019 and 1991/2019, holding that the respective impugned proceedings (CC 538/2018 and FIR 42/2019) should be quashed in light of the genuine settlement reached through the mediation centre. The mediation agreement was to form part of the order, and certified copies were to be sent to the concerned authorities. The two matters were finally disposed of in terms of the order.
Final Disposition
Quashed; the two proceedings stand quashed and the matter is finally disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Firoz.K.P
  • Rabiya Rahman
  • Suhara
  • Dr. Shamma
  • Dr. Shahida
  • Dr. N.K. Abubacker

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Dr. Shamma
  • Firoz.K.P

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Santhosh Mathew
  • • Thomas J. Anakkallunkal
  • • C. P. Udayabhanu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C. P. Udayabhanu
  • • Public Prosecutor (Priya Shanavas)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 830/2019 and 1991/2019), deals with quashing of criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes between the same couple. In Crl.M.C.830/2019, the husband (1st petitioner) and wife (2nd respondent) sought quashment of CC 538/2018 (offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode. In Crl.M.C.1991/2019, the husband (1st respondent) and his wife (1st petitioner in the other petition) sought quashment of FIR No.42/2019 (IPC 420 and 34) registered at TePPNipalam Police Station, Malappuram, based on a separate private complaint. Both sides informed the court that their disputes had been settled through mediation, and a mediation settlement dated 3.3.2019 was produced, containing clauses that had no objection to quashing the proceedings. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v State of Punjab to hold that quashing can be invoked under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. in cases where the dispute is genuinely settled and continuing prosecution would serve no purpose. On this basis, the court quashed both sets of proceedings against all accused and treated the mediation agreement as part of the order, disposing of the petitions. The decision underscores a trend favoring restorative settlement over protracted prosecutions in matrimonial disputes, balancing private interests with judicial efficiency.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.Sections 420 & 34 IPCSection 498A IPCSection 406 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power of High Courts to quash prosecutions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases where settlements render continuance futile
  • Settlement and quashing as a legitimate anticipatory remedy in matrimonial disputes
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr (2014) 6 SCC 466 (para 29) as governing precedents

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the disputes between the parties were matrimonial and having been settled through mediation, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an unnecessary use of judicial time and resources. They urged quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C., supported by the mediation settlement and the court’s jurisdiction under the stated precedents to ensure final resolution of the matter.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledged the settlement and argued that quashment is appropriate where there is a genuine settlement and continued prosecution would defeat the ends of justice, especially in matrimonial disputes; they relied on Supreme Court authorities endorsing quashing in settled disputes.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to justify quashing of prosecution under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. when parties settle and continuation would be futile.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited for guidance on settlement-based quashing (para 29) in the context of matrimonial disputes.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Crl.M.C.No.830 of 2019 & Crl.M.C.No.1991 of 2019, High Court of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.830 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 538/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 311/2019 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PARAPPANANGADI** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**FIROZ.K.P, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O ABDURAHMAN, RAHMAN**| |---|---| ||**GARDENS, BEHIND VICE CHANCELLOR BANGALOW**| ||**P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE.**| |**2**|**RABIYA RAHMAN, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O RAHMAN, RAHMAN**| ||**GARDENS, BEHIND VICE CHANCELLOR BANGALOW**| ||**P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE.**| |**3**|**SUHARA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O ABDU RAHMAN, RAHMAN**| ||**GARDENS, BEHIND VICE CHANCELLOR BANGALOW**| ||**P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.** - **2 DR. SHAMMA, AGED 35 YEARS D/O ABOOBACKER, SITTADAL HOUSE, A R CAMP ROAD, VELLIMADKUNNU, KOZHIKODE 673 012.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1991/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.1991 of 2019** **CRIME NO.42/2019 OF Thenhipalam Police Station , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 DR. SHAMMA, AGED 35 YEARS D/O.ABOOBACKER, SITTDAL HOUSE, AR CAMP ROAD, VELLIMADUKUNNU, CHEVAYOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.** - **2 DR.SHAHIDHA, W/O.ABOOBACKER,SITTDAL HOUSE, AR CAMP ROAD, VELLIMADUKUNNU, CHEVAYOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.** - **3 DR.N.K.ABOOBACKER, SITTDAL HOUSE, AR CAMP ROAD, VELLIMADUKUNNU, CHEVAYOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 FIROZ.K.P, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.ABDU REHMAN, REHMAN GARDEN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O. KONDOTTY, PIN-673603.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE(CRIME NO.42/2019 OF TENHIPALAM POLICE STATION ) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.830/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ================== Crl.M.C.Nos.830/2019 and 1991/2019 ================== Dated this the 11[th] day of July, 2019 ## **O R D E R** The prayers in these two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are for quashment of the respective impugned criminal proceedings registered as against the respective parties concerned on the ground of settlement of the disputes between them. The impugned criminal proceedings in these two cases have mainly arisen out of matrimonial disputes between the 1[st] petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.830/ 2019 (husband, who is also R-1 in Crl.M.C.No. 1991/2019) and the 2[nd] respondent in the Crl.M.C.No.830/2019 (wife, who is also the 1[st] petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 1991/2019). 2. The accused persons in C.C.No.538/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kozhikode are the 3 petitioners, including the husband in Crl.M.C.No. 830/2019, wherein the wife has been made as the 2[nd] respondent. Whereas the 3 accused persons including the wife in impugned Crime No.42/2019 of Tehnippalam Police Station are the 3 petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 1991/ 2019 and the 1[st] respondent therein is the husband. 3. It appears that the wife has filed private criminal complaint (Anx.A-1 in Crl.M.C.No.830/2019) before the Judicial First Crl.M.C.830 & 1991/2019 - : 4 :- Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kozhikode, alleging that her husband and the two other accused (viz., 3 petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 830/2019) have committed offences punishable under Secs.406 and 498A of the I.P.C. It appears that the said criminal complaint is now pending as Calendar Case, C.C.No. 538/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kozhikode, in respect of the abovesaid offence. It also appears that the husband has filed a private criminal complaint as Crl. Miscellaneous Petition No.311/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi, under Sec. 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. alleging that wife and her parents have committed the offence as per Secs.420 and 34 of the I.P.C., in view of the allegations raised therein. (A copy of the said private criminal complaint filed by the husband has been produced as Anx. A-4 in Crl.M.C.No.830/2019). It further appears that the learned Magistrate had issued direction under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. in the matter of conduct of investigation and thereupon, the Police, has registered FIR in Crime No. 42/2019 of Tehnippalam Police Station for offence punishable under Secs. 420 and 34 of the I.P.C. , in which the 3 accused arrayed therein are wife, her mother and her father respectively, as accused Nos.1 to 3. (A copy of the said FIR in Crime No. 42/2019 of Tehnippalam Police Station has been produced as Crl.M.C.830 & 1991/2019 - : 5 :- Anx. I in Crl.M.C.No.1991/2019 filed by the wife and her parents). 4. Both sides submit that the abovesaid impugned criminal proceedings have arisen mainly out of matrimonial disputes pending between the husband (who is the 1[st] petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 830/ 2019) and the wife (who is the 1[st] petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 1991/ 2019) and that lot of other matrimonial litigative proceedings are also pending between them. Both sides had taken the option of settling their disputes through mediatory efforts through the mediation centre attached to this Court. It is now submitted by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective petitioners in the two Crl.M.C.s. that the disputes between the parties have been fully resolved through mediation process. The mediation centre attached to this Court has also reported that the matter has been settled through mediation. A copy of the said mediation settlement agreement has been produced for the perusal of this Court. Sub clauses (i) and (ii) of clause E of paragraph 5 of the said mediation agreement specifically provide that the respective parties do not have any objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in Calendar Case, C.C.No. 538/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kozhikode, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No. 830/2019 before this Court as well as for quashment of Crl.M.C.830 & 1991/2019 - : 6 :- the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 42/2019 of the Tehnippalam Police Station, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No. 1991/2019 now pending before this Court. 5. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for Crl.M.C.830 & 1991/2019 - : 7 :- quashment. 6. Accordingly it is ordered that:- _(i) In Crl.M.C.No. 830/2019, all further proceedings in Anx. A-1 Calendar Case, C.C.No. 538/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kozhikode as against all the accused persons and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against the accused persons will stand quashed._ _(ii) In Crl.M.C.No. 1991/2019, all proceedings in the impugned A-1 FIR in Crime No. 42/2019 of Tehnippalam Police Station, which is pending as against all the accused persons therein and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against all the accused persons will remain quashed._ The respective petitioners will forward certified copies of this order to the court below concerned and to the investigating officer in respect of Crime No.42/2019 of Tehnippalam Police Station for necessary information. The office of the Advocate General will forward certified copy of this order to the investigating officer in Crime No.42/2019 of Tehnippalam Police Station for information. 7. The abovesaid mediation settlement agreement dated 3.3.2019 arrived at between the parties will form part of this order and the Registry will separately place an attested photocopy of the said memorandum of settlement agreement as an Annexure to this order. Crl.M.C.830 & 1991/2019 - : 8 :- With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Cases will stand finally disposed of. Sd/sdk+ **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Crl.M.C.830 & 1991/2019 - : 9 :- ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 830/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO 538/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS 1, KOZHIKODE ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 2.3.2018 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LEGAL NOTICE DATED 15.3.2018 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO 311/2019 FILED UNDER SECTION 190 (1) (A) OF CR.P.C.BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANANGADI ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF OP NO 1250/2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE ANNEXURE A6 MEMORANDUM OF MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 3.3.2019.** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1991/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY O THE FIR IN CRIME NO.42/2019 OF TENHIPALAM POLICE STATION.** - **ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 18/01/2019 BEFORE JFCM COURT, PARAPPANAGADI** - **ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TAKEN ON FILE AS CC.NO.538/2018 BEFORE JFCM COURT, KOZHIKODE.** - **ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF OP NO.1250/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE.**