Devadasan Pillai v. State 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. 1585 of 2013 () --------------------------CC.25/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 1371/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ## PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ----------------------------- DEVADASAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.MADHAVANASHAN, SINDHU NIVAS (TRA 160) THEKKEVILA CHERIYIL, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT SREEJINIVAS, CHOOLATHERUVU JUNCTION MUTHUKULAM VADAKKUMMURICHERI, MUTHUKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.SREEVALSAN.V SMT.M.K.SHIMI SRI.D.SREENATH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-31. 2. SINDHU T NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS D/O.MEENAKSHIAMMA, SINDHU NIVAS (TRA 160) THEKKEVILA CHERIYIL, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT SREEJINIVAS, CHOOLATHERUVU JUNCTION MUTHUKULAM VADAKKUMMURICHERI, MUTHUKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1585 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A1:A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.25/2012 OF JFCM-II, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE-A2:THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1585 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** The petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. Matrimonial disharmony and conflicts between the petitioner and the second respondent are allegedly the reasons that compelled the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.1371 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station was registered based on her complaint and Annexure-A1 is the final report laid in the said crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-A1 final report laid in the said crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.25 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam on the ground that the entire issues and disputes that constrained the second respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioner have been **Crl.M.C.1585/13** 2 settled amicably. It is further stated that after compromising the marital discord, the petitioner and the second respondent have now taken a decision to reside together, peacefully. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perusing Annexure-A2 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent it leaves no doubt regarding the fact that the entire issues had been settled amicably and that the petitioner and the second respondent have decided to preserve the institution of marriage. True that an offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the decision 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 Penal Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case where wife concerned on settling the issues that led to the lodging of the complaint wants to settle her life, there is no reason to decline exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In such **Crl.M.C.1585/13** 3 circumstances, non-exercise of inherent power would defeat the purport behind introduction of Section 498A, it was further held. Going by the decision, the fact that Section 498A is noncompoundable and the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. prohibits compounding of any offence except otherwise than in terms of the provisions under that section cannot and will not limit or affect the powers of the High Court to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in appropriate cases. In such circumstances, when the wife had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime with her husband and decided to settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and in such eventuality it would certainly defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. The subsequent developments, as mentioned above, have made continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam absolutely unnecessary. I am of the view that compelling its continuance would put the matrimonial tie **Crl.M.C.1585/13** 4 between the petitioner and the second respondent in astringent. When the attempt of the parties is to preserve and protect the institution of marriage, this Court has a duty to create a conducive situation for the couple concerned to succeed in their attempt. 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 the duty of this Court to terminate such unnecessary proceedings. In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report laid in Crime No.1371 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.25 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1585/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **Crl.M.C.1585/13** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**