Gireesh Kumar, Saraswathi G. Nair and Geetha v. State of Kerala and Smitha Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/1ST PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 977 of 2013 () ------------------------- CC.67/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO.1276/2011 OF NEDUMANAGD POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: -------------------------------- 1. GIREESH KUMAR AGED 41 YEARS - S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, GOWRI SHANKARAM IRUMBA ALUMOODU LANE, IRUMBA MURI, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE 2. SARASWATHI G. NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS D/O.THANKAMMA, GOWRI SHANKARAM, IRUMBA ALUMOODU LANE IRUMBA MURI, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE 3. GEETHA, AGED 44 YEARS D/O.SARAWATHI G. NAIR, GOWRI SHANKARAM IRUMBA ALUMOODU LANE, IRUMBA MURI, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS/ STATE & CW1: ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUMANAGD POLICE STATION REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SMITHA DEVI, AGED 32 YEARS D/O.BABY, DEVI BHAVAN, VETTAMPALLI VETTAMPALLI MURI, ANAD VILLAGE PIN CODE R2 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.977/13 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: - ANNEXURE A:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1276/2011 OF NEDUMANAGD POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.67/2012 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD. - ANNEXURE B:PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANAGD IN O.P(HMA)NO.776/2012 UNDER SECTION 13B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. ANNEXURE C: AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TPO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 977 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 20[th] day of February, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.67 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad. The indictment against them is one of commission of offence under section 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent herein lodged a complaint based on which crime No.1276 of 2011 of Nedumangad Police Station was registered. Annexure-A is the final report in the said crime. First petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. In fact, it is the strained relationship between them and the constant bickering that constrained the second respondent to lodge a complaint that resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime. Annexure-C affidavit filed by the second respondent would reveal that the second respondent had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of the **Crl.M.C.977/13** 2 aforesaid crime with the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Annexure-C would reveal that crime No.1276 of 2011 of Nedumangad Police Station was registered at the instance of the second respondent based on a complaint on account of the marital dispute with the first petitioner. It is further evident that the said dispute and situation that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled and compromised between the second respondent and the petitioners. Admittedly, the first petitioner and the second respondent have already approached the Family Court, Nedumangad by filing O.P.(HMA).No.776 of 2012 for dissolution of their marriage under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, in terms of the settlement. Thus, it is obvious that the second respondent has decided to settle her life and for that purpose, she has compromised and settled the matter with the petitioners. **Crl.M.C.977/13** 3 3. 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 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 circumstances, non-exercise of inherent power would defeat the purport of Section 498A. It is further held therein that though Section 498A is non-compoundable in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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 settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime against husband and relatives for commission of offences under section 498A and decided to settle her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate **Crl.M.C.977/13** 4 the proceedings would prevent the wife from settling her life. In such eventuality, it would defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. At any rate, on account of subsequent developments, continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.67 of 2012 based on Annexure-A has become In such unnecessary. 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. Resultantly, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A final report in crime No.1276 of 2011 of Nedumangad Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.67 of 2012 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad are quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.977/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.977/13** 6