JAYIN K.G. v. STATE OF KERALA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed; the proceedings in C.C.No.913/13 (Crime No.682/2013, Vaikom Police Station) are quashed under Section 482 CrPC; the office is directed to communicate the order to the concerned court.
Final Disposition: Quashed (proceedings quashed)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JAYIN K.G.

Respondents

State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
STEMI S.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri G. Sreekumar (Chelur)
• Sri Nandagopal S. Kurup

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Joy C Paul
• Public Prosecutor Smt. Sareena George P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 993 of 2014) arising from CC 913/2013 and Crime No. 682/2013 of Vaikom Police Station. Jayin K.G., the petitioner-accused, faces allegations under IPC Sections 498A, 323 and 506 on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent (the defacto-complainant and wife). The private complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC, culminating in a charge-sheet and the case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. Since then, the parties have had ongoing disputes elsewhere, but—through family intervention and well-wishers—the matters have been settled and the couple has decided to separate. The 2nd respondent swore an affidavit (Annexure B) stating she has no objection to quashing and no longer wishes to pursue the prosecution. The petitioner argues that there is no chance of conviction and continuing the prosecution would be fruitless harassment; since the offense under 498A is non-compoundable, the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash. The State and the 2nd respondent support quashing, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to justify disposal when settlements occur. The court grants the petition, quashing the proceedings in CC 913/2013 and directing communication of the order to the concerned court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 156(3) CrPCSection 498A IPCSection 323 IPCSection 506 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings.
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in family disputes when the parties have settled (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the case originated from a private complaint under IPC 498A, 323, 506. The parties have reconciled with the intervention of family members, and the defacto-complainant has no objection to quashing. Since 498A is not a compoundable offence, the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, as there is no likelihood of conviction and continuing the prosecution would be harassment and a misuse of judicial time. The state has not opposed quashing.

Contentions of Respondents

The 2nd respondent states settlement and no objection to quashing; the State/1st respondent’s counsel rely on Gian Singh to support quashing; the aim is to prevent harassment and conserve judicial resources; court should quash given settlement and absence of objection.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Court relied on the Supreme Court decision to quash proceedings when the parties have settled family disputes; supports exercise of Section 482 CrPC power.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/10TH MAGHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 993 of 2014 () -------------------------IN CC 913/2013 of J.M.F.C.,VAIKOM** **CRIME NO. 682/2013 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------** **JAYIN K.G., KORTHANTHARAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMCHERITHEKKEMURIYIL, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP.** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **2. STEMI S.,** **FLAT NO.RCC, KALPPAKA GARDENS, CHALIKKAVATTOM KARA, KANAYANNOOR THALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 011.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI. JOY C PAUL BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rvs/** _**Crl.MC.No. 993 of 2014 ()**_ ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES : --------------------------** **ANNEXURE A- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 02.08.2013 IN C.C.NO.913/2013 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VAIKOM. ANNEXURE B- AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.01.2014 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : -------------------------** **NIL.** **/true copy/ P.ATO JUDGE** **rvs/** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.993 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of January, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the accused in C.C.No.913/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, to quash the proceedings, recoding composition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner married the 2[nd] respondent and they were living together for sometime and thereafter mis-understanding arose between them, which resulted in initiating several litigations including a complaint under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. The present case was registered on the basis of a private complaint, filed by the 2[nd] respondent, against the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 498(A), 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. There were other litigations pending between the parties before the Crl.M.C. No.993 of 2014 2 Family Court and other courts as well. The private complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the 'Code' and a case was registered as Crime No.682/2013 of Vaikom police station and after investigation final report was filed and that was taken on file as C.C.No.913/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, and the case is pending before that court now. In the meantime, due to the intervention of family members and well-wishers of both the parties, all the disputes between them have been settled. The 2[nd] respondent has no complaint against the petitioner and they have decided to separate. There is no purpose in keeping the case on file, as no conviction will be possible in this case, as the defacto-complainant has no objection in quashing the proceedings. Since the offence under Section 498(A) is not a compoundable offence, they want the intervention of this court to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. Hence the petition. Crl.M.C. No.993 of 2014 3 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. 4. The counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and the 2[nd] respondent has no objection in allowing the criminal miscellaneous case. 5. It is seen from the allegations in the petition and the documents produced that, the above case was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, against the petitioner alleging offences under Section 498(A), 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the 'Code' and on getting the complaint, Vaikom police had registered a case and after investigation, filed final report, which was taken on the file by the learned magistrate as C.C.No.913/2013. Crl.M.C. No.993 of 2014 4 6. It is also seen from the averments in the petition that the matter has been settled between the parties, and they have decided to separate. Other disputes between them were also settled due to the intervention of the family members and well-wishers. The 2[nd] respondent filed an affidavit produced as Annexure-B, swearing that the matter has been settled between the parties and she has no objection in quashing the proceedings, as she has no complaint against him now. 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 has to be quashed, invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code. 7. In this case also, the parties have settled their disputes and decided to separate, on the basis of the Crl.M.C. No.993 of 2014 5 settlement arrived at between them due to the intervention of the family members and well-wishers. So considering the circumstances, I feel that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked to quash the proceedings as no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, as the defacto-complainant will not support the case. So the application is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.913/13 (Crime No.682/2013 of Vaikom Police Station), on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, against the petitioner is quashed. The office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss Crl.M.C. No.993 of 2014 6