Jaffer Kalathinkal and others v. State of Kerala and Sakkeena Beevi K.

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. 1393 of 2013 () --------------------------CC.220/2012 of J.M.F.C.,PAYYANNUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4: ----------------------------------------- 1. JAFFER KALATHINKAL, S/O.VEERASHA, AGED 42 YEARS KALALTHINKAL HOUSE, PERIYAMBALAM PULIKKAL P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SUBAIDA, W/O.VEERASHA, AGED 72 YEARS KALALTHINKAL HOUSE, PERIYAMBALAM PULIKKAL P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SHEREEF K., S/O.VEERASHA, AGED 52 YEARS KALALTHINKAL HOUSE, PERIYAMBALAM PULIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. FAOUSIYA, W/O.GAFOOR, AGED 34 YEARS KALALTHINKAL HOUSE, PERIYAMBALAM PULIKKAL P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI ## RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------- ## 1. STATE OF KERALA - REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH S.H.O.PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SAKKEENA BEEVI K. - D/O.K.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 29 YEARS, ANCHILLATH HOUSE CHUNDA P.O., VAYAKKARA AMSOM CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 564. R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH 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. 1393 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------- ANNEXURE-A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.492/2011 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 161 OF CR.P.C. OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE-A3 :TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.492/2011 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A4 :TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.220/2012 OF J.F.C.M COURT PAYYANNUR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **========================== CRL.M.C. No.1393 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner and the third petitioner is his brother. The fourth petitioner is another relative of the first petitioner. Matrimonial disharmony and conflicts between the first petitioner and the second respondent and joining in the said issue by petitioners 2 to 4 are allegedly the reasons that compelled the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.492 of 2011 of Peringome Police Station was registered based on her complaint and Annexure-A4 is the charge sheet laid in the said crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-A4 sheet laid in the said crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.220 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, **Crl.M.C.1393/13** 2 Payyannur on the ground that the entire issues and disputes that constrained the second respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioners have been settled amicably. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The second respondent has now filed an affidavit, in this case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent and affidavit sworn in by the second respondent would reveal that the lis involved in this case has been compromised and settled between the second respondent and the petitioners. It is further evident that as part of the settlement arrived at between the first petitioner and second respondent, they have decided to part their ways. Admittedly, the first petitioner has pronounced Thalaq on the second respondent. It is thus evident and also admitted that it is essentially the matrimonial disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime and that they have been settled **.** amicably between the parties **Crl.M.C.1393/13** 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 behind introduction of Section 498A, it was further held. Going by the decision, the fact that Section 498A is noncompoundable 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 482 Cr.P.C., in appropriate cases. In such circumstances, when the wife had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime with her husband and his relatives and decided to settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C **Crl.M.C.1393/13** 4 to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and in such eventuality would certainly defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. The subsequent developments as mentioned above have made continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur absolutely unnecessary. 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-A4 charge sheet laid in crime No.492 of 2011 of Peringome Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.220 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1393/13** 5 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT** **Crl.M.C.1393/13** 6 **September, 2010**