High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-04-12Both petitions were allowed; the criminal proce...

Deepa v. State of Kerala and Vijeesh Vijayan

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.1286 of 2013; CRL.M.C.1430/2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-04-12
Court Decision / Holding: CRL.M.C.1286 of 2013: Annexure-II final report in Crime No.184/2012 and all further proceedings before the JFCM, Perumbavoor, are quashed. CRL.M.C.1430 of 2013: Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.11/2012 and all further proceedings are quashed.
Final Disposition: Both petitions were allowed; the criminal proceedings arising from Crime No.184/2012 and Crime No.11/2012 were quashed, with final reports/FIRs and subsequent proceedings discontinued; the disputes between the parties are settled and judicial relief granted to move forward.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Deepa

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Perumbavoor Police Station
Vijeesh Vijayan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri N. M. Mohammed Ayub
• Sri P. V. Shamsuddin

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. S. Hyma (State of Kerala)
• Sri C. K. Pavithran (for Respondent 3 Vijeesh Vijayan)
• The Station House Officer, Perumbavoor Police Station

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, CRL.M.C.1286/2013 and CRL.M.C.1430/2013, were heard together by the Kerala High Court. Deepa, the wife of Vijeesh Vijayan, had lodged a complaint against her husband under sections 120B, 365, 342, 323, 506(ii) and 427 read with section 34 IPC in Crime No. 184 of 2012 of Perumbavoor Police Station. The husband, in turn, faced a criminal case registered against him under section 498A IPC and allied sections in Crime No. 11 of 2012. The matrimonial disputes culminated in a compromise under Annexure-III of the Hindu Marriage Act (section 13B) for dissolution of marriage and withdrawal of criminal cases. The court noted the breakdown of the marriage and the parties’ settlement, referencing the Supreme Court decisions B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that the legislature’s intent behind 498A should not obstruct a bona fide settlement. Accordingly, the court held that continuing proceedings would be futile and not in the interests of justice. Consequently, CRL.M.C.1286/2013 was allowed: Annexure-II final report and proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor, were quashed. CRL.M.C.1430/2013 was allowed: Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.11/2012 and all further proceedings were quashed. The order thereby terminates the disputes and permits the parties to move forward.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A IPCSections 120B, 365, 342, 323, 506(i) read with Section 34 IPCSection 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in the interests of justice
Settlement of matrimonial disputes can justify quashing under inherent powers (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Intention behind the introduction of Section 498A to protect victims while not defeating settlements (B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the matrimonial disputes have been amicably settled as per Annexure-III under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, leading to withdrawal of all criminal cases. They urged the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings in light of the settlement to avoid futility and promote justice and finality in personal life, citing the need to give effect to the remedial purpose behind section 498A.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledged the parties’ settlement and supported scrutiny of the settlement in the light of public interest, while the Public Prosecutor maintained a stance on maintaining statutory processes unless the settlement clearly supersedes the criminal actions; the submissions focused on whether quashing would be in the interests of justice.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash where settlement is possible; confirms legislative intent behind 498A.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support that where parties have settled, continuing prosecution is unnecessary and not in the interests of justice.

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 Deepa v. State of Kerala and Vijeesh Vijayan 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/22ND CHAITHRA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1286 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 184/2012 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S): ------------------** **DEEPA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.MOHANAN & W/O.VIJEESH VIJAYAN, ANANDALAYAM KUNTHIRICKAL P.O, PIN 689 572.** **BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB SRI.P.V.SHAMSUDDIN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **---------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER** - **PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR P.O PIN 683 542. (CRIME NO. 184 OF 2012 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION)** **3. VIJEESH VIJAYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, NANGELIL HOUSE, NEAR SANJOE CONVENT PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 542.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-04-2013, ALONG WITH CRMC. 1430/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1286 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **-------------------------------------** ## **ANNEXURE 1. CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.184/2012 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2. CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.184/2012 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, SUBMITTED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.** **ANNEXURE 3. CERTIFIED COPY OF O.P NO.45/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **dlk** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. Nos.1286 & 1430 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** The petitioner in the former petition is the wife of the petitioner in the latter petition. Evidently, it is the matrimonial disputes and discords that constrained the petitioner in the former petition to lodge a complaint against the petitioner in the latter petition for commission of offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as husband and wife. The husband caused registration of crime No.184 of 2012 of Perumbavoor Police Station against the wife alleging commission of offences under sections 120(B), 365, 342, 323, 506(i) and 427 read with section 34 IPC. Having found that the matrimonial tie is broken down irretrievably, the wife and husband moved the Family Court Muvattupuzha by filing Annexure-III petition under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage. The **Crl.M.C.1286 & 1430/13** 2 aforesaid joint petition has been filed in terms of the compromise arrived at, in Annexure-III. Evidently, with a view to settle in their life, they have also agreed as per Annexure-III to take appropriate steps to withdraw criminal cases filed against each other. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and the learned Public Prosecutor. As noticed hereinbefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in these petitions, it is evident that it is the strained connubial relationship and the continued bickering that resulted in the lodging of the complaints against each other and registration of the aforesaid crimes. Evidently, they have now arrived at a settlement. In crime No.11 of 2012, the allegation against the husband is one of commission of offence under section 498A of the IPC. In this contextual situation, it is only appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 **Crl.M.C.1286 & 1430/13** 3 Penal Code, the Hon'ble apex court held therein that declining exercise of the inherent jurisdiction which would prevent the wife from settling in her life would definitely defeat the very intent behind the introduction section 498A in the Indian Penal Code. In these cases, it is evident that the wife wanted to settle the entire disputes with her husband, the petitioner in the latter petition, with a view to settle in her life after settling the entire disputes with him. In fact, they have settled the entire disputes as is obvious from Annexure-III. In such circumstances, I am of the view that refusing to act upon Annexure-III to bring about termination of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, husband and wife would not be in the interest of justice as disinclination to invoke the inherent jurisdiction would definintely prevent the wife from settling in her life after settling the disputes with her husband. In the light Annexure-III and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in both the petitions, I am inclined to accept the submission and contentions of the petitioners that the entire disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crimes have been settled amicably. In such circumstances, **Crl.M.C.1286 & 1430/13** 4 compelling continuation of criminal proceedings would end only in futility. No fruitful purpose could be served by compelling continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in these petitions. In the light of Annexure-III and the facts obtained in these cases, I have no hesitation to hold that continuation of criminal proceedings against the husband and wife has become 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 only appropriate for this Court to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of these petitions as hereunder:- Crl.M.C.No.1286 of 2013 This petition is allowed. Annexure-II final report laid in crime No.184 of 2012 of Perumbavoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against the petitioner on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor in C.C.No.285/2012, are hereby quashed. **Crl.M.C.1286 & 1430/13** 5 Crl.M.C.No.1430 of 2013 This petition is allowed. Annexure -1 FIR registered in crime No.11 of 2012 of Perumbavoor Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioner pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. ## **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** **(JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1286 & 1430/13** 6 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.1286 & 1430/13** 7