Honey Bino Varghese v. State of Kerala and Jincy Rajan

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2021 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1943** **CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021** **AGAINST ANNEXURE-1 FIR IN CRIME NO.992/2020 OF** **MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **PETITIONER:** **HONEY BINO VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS, S./O GHEEVARGHESE, KANIYAM MOLATH HOUSE, PERUMPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 314, MULANTHURUTHY.** **BY ADV. SRI. JOMON.P.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 018. 2 JINCY RAJAN, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. HONEY BINO VARGHESE, KANIYAM MOLATH HOUSE, PERUMPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 314.** **SRI. C.N PRABHAKARAN- SR. PP BY ADV E.S. SANEEJ** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 2 ## **ORDER** The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.992 of 2020 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has filed this Crl.M.C., under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking an order to quash further proceedings in Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.992 of 2020 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. The 2[nd] respondent herein is the de facto complainant. Along with the Crl.M.C, the petitioner has placed on record Annexure-2 first information statement dated 23.09.2020 and Annexure-3 affidavit dated 09.03.2021 sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent, wherein it has been stated that the subject matter of the dispute has been settled through the intervention of family members and she has no objection in quashing the crime registered against the petitioner. In the said affidavit it has also been stated that, since the 2[nd] respondent intends to live along with the petitioner, the pendency of the proceedings pursuant to Crime No.992 of 2020 may cause serious injury and may affect their future life. 2. On 10.03.2021, when this case came up for admission, the matter was adjourned to 25.03.2021 for the CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 3 statement of the learned Public Prosecutor. On 25.03.2021, this Court ordered that the statement of the de facto complainant may be recorded, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the affidavit sworn to by her. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused, the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1[st] respondent - State and also the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent - de facto complainant. 4. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with inherent powers of High Court. As per Section 482, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 5. In **State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699]** considering the scope of inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Apex Court held that in the exercise of power under Section 482, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. In a criminal case, CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 4 the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. Without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. In the said case, on facts, the Apex Court noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. The wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR. She has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 5 happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Then it would not be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides. 6. In **Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692]** the Apex Court held that while exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 6 the proceedings. 7. In **B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675]** the Apex Court held that, it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that nonexercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860. In view of the above, the Apex Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the said Code. CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 7 8. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]** the Apex Court held that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 8 and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominately civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 9 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the Investigating Officer has already recorded the statement of the 2[nd] respondent as to the genuineness of Annexure-3 affidavit sworn to by her, wherein the de facto complainant has stated that subject matter of the dispute has already been settled. The petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent are living together and she has no objection in quashing the crime registered against the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would submit that subject matter of the dispute has already been settled through the intervention of family members and the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent started living together. As stated in Annexure-3 affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent, she has no objection in quashing Annexure-1 FIR in Crime CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 10 No.992 of 2020 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, registered against the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, considering the fact that subject matter of the dispute has already been settled through the intervention of family members and as the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent started living together, Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.992 of 2020 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, registered against the petitioner may be quashed, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to secure the ends of justice. 12. Having considered the materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused, the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1[st] respondent - State and also the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent - de facto complainant, this Court finds that the 2[nd] respondent - wife has resolved the disputes with the petitioner - husband, at the intervention of family members, and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had certain differences. Because of resolution of disputes between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent, the possibility of CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 11 conviction is remote and bleak. It would be unfair to continue with the criminal proceeding in Crime No.992 of 2020 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, despite settlement and compromise of the disputes between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent. In such circumstances, to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal proceeding in Crime No.992 of 2020 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station is put to an end, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the result, this Crl.MC is allowed by quashing Annexure1 FIR in Crime No.992 of 2020 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station, registered against the petitioner, based on Annexure A2 first information statement made by the 2[nd] respondent. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** SPR CRL.MC NO. 1459 OF 2021 12 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.992/2020 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION.** **EXHIBIT P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.992/2020 OF MULUNTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2021.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.**