Deeja v. The State of Kerala and Sudheeshkumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3835 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **CC 989/2011 of J.M.F.C.,NADAPURAM CRIME NO. 586/2011 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE** **---------------** ## **PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------** **DEEJA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNAN PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, KADAMERI (PO), ELAYIDAM, NADAPURAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR** **RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED NO.2 C.C. NO.989/2011:** **--------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NADAPURAM POLICE STATION** **THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA PIN 682 031.** **2. SUDHEESHKUMAR, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN** **KOROMVEETIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR (PO) VADAKARA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -673 101.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** **Crl.MC.No. 3835 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **---------** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNX.1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.586/2011 DATED 10-11-2011.** **ANNX.2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 12-12-2011** **ANNX.3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE OF SETTLEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29-8-2013** **ANNX.4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT OF MEDIATION WITH REGARD TO RETURN OF GOLD ORNAMENT DATED 22-2-2010.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3835 of 2013** **------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.586/11 of Nadapuram police station and the 2[nd] respondent is the accused in the above crime. On completing the investigation in the above crime, the police has already filed a report, based upon which C.C.No.989/11 was instituted in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Nadapuram, on taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 294(b), 406 and 498 A of IPC. The allegation raised by the de facto complainant against the accused is that the 2[nd] respondent/2[nd] accused married her on 25.5.2009 as per the customary rites prevailing among Hindu religion and while the petitioner/ **Crl.M.C.No.3835 of 2013** 2 de facto complainant was residing in her matrimonial home, the accused misappropriated the gold ornaments of the de facto complainant and physically harassed her and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under section 294(b), 406 and 498 A of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner who is the de facto complainant is that after the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the accused, the entire dispute is settled amicably through the negotiation between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent. Annexure-3 is the application for compromise of settlement which is signed by both the petitioner/de facto complainant and the 2[nd] respondent/accused and counter signed by respective counsel. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/de facto complainant do not want to proceed any further against the accused/2[nd] respondent, as **Crl.M.C.No.3835 of 2013** 3 the matter is settled out of court. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the settlement arrived, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to move this Court to withdraw or to co-operate with the proceedings for quashing Crime No.586/2011 and the de facto complainant has also received the disputed gold ornaments from the 2[nd] respondent as per the local mediation on 22.2.2010. Learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent has also submitted that as the matter has been settled, the proceedings now pending against him has to be dropped. As I am satisfied with the settlement arrived, particularly in view of Annexure-3 and in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent, according to me, it is the duty of this Court to promote such settlement and to drop the proceedings, following the guidelines issued by the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] and **Jitendra** **Crl.M.C.No.3835 of 2013** 4 ## **Raghuvanshi and Others** v. **Babita Raghuvanshi and** **another** [2013 (1) KLD 817 (SC)]. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline 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 proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be 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 is further held as follows:- “......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the **Crl.M.C.No.3835 of 2013** 5 compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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........” ## Further, in **Jitendra Raghuvanshi's case,** the Apex Court has held as follows:- “7. It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C. not only against the husband but also against the relatives of the husband. The question is when such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both the sides approached the High Court and jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C., whether the prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. 8. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement. Pursuant thereto, the **Crl.M.C.No.3835 of 2013** 6 appellants filed the said compromise before the Trial Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in additional to the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent/wife has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants and fully supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that no only the Trial Court rejected such prayer of the parties but also the High Court failed toe exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on the ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non-compoundable in nature.” “12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 13. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement **Crl.M.C.No.3835 of 2013** 7 instead of fighting it out in a Court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the Courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.” Overlooking the settlement arrived, if the trial is allowed to stand, the net result would be sheer waste of time which will amounts to abuse of process of court. In the result this M.C. is allowed quashing Annexure-I FIR and Annexure-2 final report and all further proceedings pending against the 2[nd] respondent in C.C.No. C.C.No.989/11 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Nadapuram. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge