High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-04-10Quashed

Girijan N.C., K.K. Chellappan and Manju v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 1472 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. No. 1472 of 2013 is allowed. Annexure-A final report in crime No. 160/2005 and all further proceedings in CC No. 142/2006 against petitioners 1 and 2 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Girijan N.C., K.K. Chellappan, Manju

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheranalur Police Station (Crime No. 160/2005)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C. Anilkumar (Kallesseril)
• Sri. C. Y. Vinod Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Smt. S. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala decision arises in Crl.M.C. No. 1472 of 2013, challenging Annexure-A final report in CC No. 142 of 2006 (Cr. 160/2005, Cheranallur Police Station). The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 (husband and father‑in‑law) and the defacto complainant, who together seek to quash the final report and subsequent proceedings, on the basis of an amicable settlement between the spouses. The factual matrix traces matrimonial discord that led to allegations under sections 109 and 498A read with section 34 IPC, forwarded for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and cognizance taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Ernakulam. The petition argues that the couple have been living together peacefully for several years and that continuing criminal proceedings would undermine settlement and matrimonial harmony. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, the court notes that while 498A is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C, the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised when the circumstances warrant, especially to preserve family life. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor, the court allows the Crl.M.C and quashes the Annexure-A final report and all further proceedings in CC No. 142 of 2006 against petitioners 1 and 2, to create a conducive environment for reconciliation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 109 IPCSection 498A read with Section 34 IPCSection 156(3) Cr.P.CSection 320 Cr.P.CSection 482 Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings in fit cases
Settlement between matrimonial parties can justify exercise of 482 Cr.P.C to terminate proceedings
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana doctrine supporting quashing in presence of settled matrimonial disputes (inherent jurisdiction to secure justice)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that a long-standing matrimonial discord has been amicably settled and the couple have been living together peacefully for years. Continuing criminal proceedings would undermine reconciliation and cause ongoing harassment. Citing B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, they contended that the High Court can exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in the interest of justice, even where 498A is not ordinarily compoundable under 320 Cr.P.C, where a settlement exists and the parties wish to live together.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, while recognizing the gravity of offences under 498A, contended that quashing should be exercised with caution. It emphasized that the case involves serious allegations and that any quashing must be compatible with the public interest and the welfare of the complainant. The State did not oppose, in principle, the exercise of 482 Cr.P.C where a legitimate settlement exists and it would not undermine justice; nonetheless, it urged careful consideration of the facts and the need to preserve the integrity of the investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC	Positive	Cited to justify using the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in light of a settled matrimonial dispute, notwithstanding 498A not being compoundable under 320 Cr.P.C.

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 Girijan N.C., K.K. Chellappan and Manju v. State of Kerala 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. 1472 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC.142/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II, ERNAKULAM DATED CRIME NO. 160/2005 OF CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 AND DEFACTO COMPLAINT:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. GIRIJAN.N.C ,AGED 35 YEARS** - **S/O.K.K.CHELLAPPAN, THOTTAPPALLY VEEDU SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSE ROAD, EDAPPALLY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **NOW RESIDING AT THOTTAPPALLY VEEDU, METAL BOX ROAD EDAPPALLY , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 024.** **2. K.K.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 73 YEARS THOTTAPPALLY VEEDU, SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSE ROAD EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT THOTTAPPALLY VEEDU, METAL BOX ROAD EDAPPALLY , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 024.** ## **3. MANJU, AGED 27 YEARS** - **W/O.GIRIJAN.N.C, THOTTAPPALLY VEEDU SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSE ROAD, EDAPPALLY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **NOW RESIDING AT THOTTAPPALLY VEEDU, METAL BOX ROAD EDAPPALLY , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 024.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR** **COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT:** **--------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHERANALUR POLICE STATION-CR NO.160/2005 OF CHERANALLUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1472 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A: FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.142/206 (CR.160/2005 OF CHERANALLUR POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-11, ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **dlk** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1472 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners 1 and 2 are respectively accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.142 of 2006 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam arising from crime No.160 of 2005 of Cheranallur Police Station. The third petitioner is the defacto complainant. Evidently, it is the matrimonial discord and disharmony that constrained the third petitioner to file a complaint before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva alleging commission of offences under sections 109 and 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioners 1 and 2. The said complaint was forwarded for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and after registering a crime, the matter was investigated and Annexure-A final report was laid in the aforesaid crime. The Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam took cognizance on Annexure-A final report and took the case on file as C.C.No.142 of 2006. This **Crl.M.C.1472/13** 2 petition has been filed seeking to quash Annexure-A final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against petitioners 1 and 2 in the aforesaid calender case on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the parties subsequent to the laying of the final report. Taking into account the serious allegations levelled against petitioners 1 and 2, this Court ordered appearance of the third petitioner, on 8.4.2013. In compliance with the said direction, the third petitioner appeared before this Court and the learned counsel for the petitioners identified the woman who appeared before this Court as the third petitioner/defacto complainant. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. As already noticed hereinbefore, it is the matrimonial dispute that constrained the third petitioner to lodge complaint against petitioners 1 and 2 who are respectively her husband and father-inlaw. Evidently, the entire disputes that led to the registration of the **Crl.M.C.1472/13** 3 aforesaid crime have been settled amicably and the third petitioner submitted that for the past several years, the first petitioner and herself are living together, peacefully. It is in the said circumstances that this petition has been filed to terminate the criminal proceedings against petitioners 1 and 2 in C.C.No.142 of 2006 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam arising from crime No.160 of 2005 of Cheranallur Police Station. 4. Going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **B.S** **Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC],** declining exercise of inherent jurisdiction in a matter where the wife seeks for interference with a view to settle in her life after settling the issues with her husband and his relatives, would defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the Indian Penal Code. In the light of the said decision though 498A is not compoundable in terms of the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C if the case on hand is otherwise a fit case for invocation of the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C., the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C would not stand **Crl.M.C.1472/13** 4 in the way of its invocation. It is evident that now the first petitioner and the third petitioner who are respectively the husband and wife are living peacefully and continuation of criminal proceedings based on Annexure-A final report against petitioners 1 and 2 would put the matrimonial tie between the first petitioner and the third petitioner in astringent. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that in order to create a conducive situation for the couple to live happily, it would only be appropriate to terminate the criminal proceedings now pending against petitioners 1 and 2. In view of the discussions as above, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A final report laid in crime No.160 of 2005 of Cheranallur Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against petitioners 1 and 2 in C.C.No.142 of 2006 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1472/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT** **Crl.M.C.1472/13** 6 **September, 2010**