Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe criminal miscellaneous case is allowed; the...

Don S/O Kamalasana Panicker and Rajamma v. State of Kerala and Subhaja

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1593 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date
2013-04-10
Court Decision / Holding
Crl.M.C.1593/13 allowed. Annexure-B final report in Crime No.391/2006 of Parassala Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto in CC No.175/2007 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara, are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition
The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed; the final report is quashed along with all further proceedings in CC No.175/2007 to preserve matrimonial harmony.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Don S/O Kamalasana Panicker, Thidamelthottam Veedu Manjalu moodu, Arumana
  • Rajamma, Thidamelthottam Veedu, Manjalu moodu, Arumana

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Subhaja, D/o Subhashini, Edavila Veedu, Manchavilakam-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri G. Sudheer

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. S.K. Vinod (for Subhaja)
  • • Public Prosecutor Smt. S. Hyma (for State)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court deals with a criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.MC No.1593 of 2013) arising from Crime No.391/2006, Parassala Police Station, involving a husband (Don) and his wife Rajamma, with Rajamma’s mother as a party, against the State of Kerala and Subhaja (the defacto complainant). The complainant, on a matrimonial dispute, had lodged a case under section 498A read with section 34 IPC, leading to CC No.175/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara. The petition seeks quashing of Annexure-B final report and all further proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their differences and decided to live together. The court notes the settled state of affairs and considers the policy behind section 498A—while non-compoundable—does not bar the High Court from using its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate proceedings in cases where a genuine settlement between spouses has been reached. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court emphasizes that quashing would serve the objective of matrimonial harmony. Consequently, the petition is allowed; Annexure-B final report and all proceedings in CC No.175/2007 are quashed in the interest of justice and marital reconciliation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, Section 498A read with Section 34Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482Criminal Procedure Code, Section 320Chapter XXA of IPC (for context regarding 498A)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases
  • Preservation of matrimonial harmony / maintenance of the institution of marriage as policy objective
  • Compounding constraints under 498A while recognizing scope of inherent powers for end-of-case settlements (Gian Singh/B.S. Joshi rationale)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the disputes giving rise to Crime No.391/2006 have been amicably settled, the couple intends to resume their married life, and continued proceedings would impede the reconciliation and thence violate the policy behind Section 498A’s enactment. Citing B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, they urge the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the final report (Annexure-B) and terminate CC No.175/2007, thereby enabling the couple to live together and preserve the matrimonial relationship. They acknowledge Section 498A is non-compoundable, but contend inherent powers can override this where settlement is genuine and continued prosecution would defeat the statute’s underlying purpose.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Section 498A is non-compoundable and that quashing would undermine the statutory scheme; however, given the amicable settlement, the court must carefully weigh whether continuing proceedings would serve justice or unnecessarily penalize the parties. They rely on the statutory framework and the need to ensure that proceedings reflect the law’s intent, resisting unwarranted quashing unless clearly warranted by the proper exercise of inherent powers.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)PositiveUsed to justify invoking the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate proceedings to enable a marital settlement, recognizing that while 498A is non‑compoundable, the court may quash proceedings to facilitate reconciliation.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited to support the proposition that the court has a duty to terminate unnecessary proceedings to preserve the marriage when the parties have settled and wish to live together.

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 Don S/O Kamalasana Panicker and Rajamma v. State of Kerala and Subhaja 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1593 of 2013 () --------------------------CC.175/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO. 391/2006 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1& 2: --------------------------------- 1.DON S/O.KAMALASANA PANICKER, THIDAMELTHOTTAM VEEDU MANJALUMOODU, ARUMANA ## 2.RAJAMMA THIDAMELTHOTTAM VEEDU, MANJALUMOODU, ARUMANA BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------------------------------- ## 1.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ## 2.SUBHAJA, D/O.SUBHASHINI, EDAVILA VEEDU, MANCHAVILAKAM- 695 001 R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.VINOD 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. 1593 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ----------------------------- - ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 391/2006 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION DATED 21-07-2006. - ANNEXURE B :TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 391/2006 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II NEYYATTINKARA. - ANNEXURE C : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 1-4-2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// ## P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1593 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. Second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. Matrimonial disharmony and conflicts between the first petitioner and the second respondent and joining in the said issue by the second petitioner are allegedly the reasons that compelled the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.391 of 2006 of Parassala Police Station was registered based on her complaint and Annexure-B is the final report laid in the said crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-B final report laid in the said crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.175 of 2007 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, **Crl.M.C.1593/13** 2 Neyyattinkara on the ground that the entire issues and disputes that constrained the second respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioners have been settled amicably. It is further stated that after compromising the marital discord, the first petitioner and the second respondent have now taken a decision to reside together, peacefully. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perusing Annexure-C 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 first 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 wanted to settle her life, declining exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would prevent her from settling in **Crl.M.C.1593/13** 3 her life and in such circumstances, non-exercise of inherent power would defeat the purport behind introduction of Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code. Going by the said decision, the fact that Section 498A is non-compoundable 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 482Cr.P.C., in appropriate cases. In such circumstances, when the wife had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime against her husband and his relatives 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 such eventuality would certainly defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. The subsequent developments, as mentioned above, would suggest that disinclination to exercise inherent power would prevent the second respondent from leading a peaceful life with her husband. In view of the admitted factual position continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.175 of 2007 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara has become absolutely unnecessary. **Crl.M.C.1593/13** 4 I am also of the view that compelling its continuance would put the matrimonial tie between the first 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-B final report laid in Crime No.391 of 2006 of Parassala Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.175 of 2007 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara are hereby quashed. ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1593/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **Crl.M.C.1593/13** 6