Hareesh, Narayana Moolya, Kamala and Hemalatha v. Baby and The State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/25TH MAGHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 1051 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 643/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 121/2010 OF BADIADUKKA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** **------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. HAREESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA MOOLYA, RESIDING AT 4/24 KOTTEKER PANCHAYATH, SAVOOR HOUSE, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.** **2. NARAYANA MOOLYA, AGED 70 YEARS RESIDING AT 4/24, KOTTEKER PANCHAYATH, SAVOOR HOUSE MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.** **3. KAMALA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.NARAYANA MOOLYA, RESIDING AT 4/24 KOTTEKER PANCHAYATH, SAVOOR HOUSE, MANGALORE D.K DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.** **4. HEMALATHA, AGED 28 YEARS,** - **D/O.NARAYANA MOOLYA, RESIDING AT 4/24 KOTTEKER, PANCHAYATH, SAVOOR HOUSE, MANGALORE D.K DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **----------------------------------** ## **1. BABY, AGED 30 YEARS** - **D/O.AYITHAPPA MOOLYA, RESIDING AT KANDETHODY HOUSE BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGODDISTRICT - 671 541** ## **2. THE STATE OF KERALA** **THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BADIADKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1051 of 2014** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.121/2010 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.121/2010 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.12.2011 ENTERED BETWEEN THE IST PETITIONER AND THE IST RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-A4: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.12.2013 SWORN IN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE** **------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1051 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.643/2010 (Crime No. 121/2010 of Badiadka Police Station), on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, to quash the proceedings, after recording the composition entered into between the parties under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.121/2010 of Badiadka Police Station. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners, alleging offences under Section 498(A), 323, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was forwarded to the police for investigation by the learned magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of 2 Crl. M.C. No.1051 of 2014 Criminal Procedure and thereafter, the police had registered a case as Crime No.121/2010 of Badiadka Police Station and after investigation, final report has filed against the petitioners as per Annexure-A2 and the learned magistrate has taken cognisance of the case as C.C.No.643/2010 for the offences under Section 323, 406 and 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter has been settled between the parties now. They have entered into Annexure-A3 agreement and the defactocomplainant also filed Annexue-A4 affidavit supporting the settlement for quashing the proceedings. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not approach the court below for compounding the case and dispose of the case on the basis of the composition. So they have no other remedy, except approach this court to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the 'Code'. 3. The first respondent appeared through 3 Crl. M.C. No.1051 of 2014 counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and she has no grievance against the petitioners and she has no objection in quashing the proceedings as well. 4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who opposed the application. 5. This an admitted fact that the first petitioner married the defacto-complainant, who is the first respondent herein and after some time, difference of opinion arose between them and they started residing separately. Thereafter several litigations, including the initiation of prosecution for the offence under Section 498 (A), 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, were also initiated at the instance of the first respondent and now the matter has been settled between the parties. The parties have entered into Annexure-A3 agreement regarding all their disputes. It is also submitted that the first respondent Crl. M.C. No.1051 of 2014 4 has no objection in withdrawing the prosecution, which is mentioned in Annexure-A3 agreement. She has also filed Annexure-A4 affidavit, wherein also she had admitted the settlement and expressed her willingness to withdraw the proceedings as well. It is also admitted that, on the basis of the joint application filed by both the parties, the marital relationship has been dissolved as well. Now they are residing separately. All the monetary claims between the parties arose out of the marital relationship have been settled between them amicably due to the intervention of the mediators and family members. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in family disputes, if the parties have settled the issues, due to the intervention of well-wishers and the family members and does not want to proceeded with the criminal prosecution initiated, then that must be honoured and the prosecution 5 Crl. M.C. No.1051 of 2014 has to be quashed, invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code. So considering the fact that it is a family dispute and it has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators, well-wishers and family members and they have decided to separate and settled all their disputes in the mediation, I feel that it must be honoured, in view of the above dictum laid down in the above decision. Further no purpose will be served in proceeding the case because the defacto-complainant will not support the prosecution and there is no possibility of the case being ending in conviction as well. So under the circumstances, I feel that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, recording the composition entered into between the parties. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.643/2010 (Crime No.121/2010 of Badiadka Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Crl. M.C. No.1051 of 2014 6 Court-I, Kasaragod, is quashed against the petitioners. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately for further necessary action. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss