JIBIN KUMAR, SAROJINI and PUSHPANGADAN v. STATE OF KERALA and THANOOJA PRIYADARSINI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/8TH PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 1041 of 2013 () -------------------------C.C.69/2013 of J.M.F.C., KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO.459/2012 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION ## PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- ## 1. JIBIN KUMAR S/O.PUSHPANGADAN, 'SIVA KRIPA', HOUSE NO. 47 AKSHAYA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, PUTHIYAKAVU TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM REP BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PUSHPANGADAN 'SIVA KRIPA', HOUSE NO. 47, AKSHAYA RESIDENTS ASSOCATION PUTHIYAKAVU, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM ## 2. SAROJINI W/O.PUSHPANGADAN, 'SIVA KRIPA', HOUSE NO. 47 AKSHAYA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, PUTHIYAKAVU TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 3. PUSHPANGADAN 'SIVA KRIPA', HOUSE N. 47 AKSHAYA RESIDENTS ASSOCATION, PUTHIYAKAVU TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. ## RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 2. THANOOJA PRIYADARSINI, D/O.SUNAJA, SADATH MANZIL, PADA NORTH MURI KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM (FROM AYAKKAMATHU VEEDU PULI SOUTH, THODIYOOR, KARUNGAPPALLY-691562) R2 BY ADV. SMT.RUBY P.PAULOSE R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.1041/2013 ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: - ANNEXURE-1:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.459/12 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION. - ANNEXURE-2:CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.69/2013 OF JFMC, KARUNAGAPPALLY. - ANNEXURE-3:TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.2.2013 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1041 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 27[th] day of February, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. Respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner. It is the marital discord and the constant bickering that made the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under sections 498A and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. On its basis, Annexure-1 FIR was registered against the petitioners and after investigation, Annexure-2 final report was laid and thereafter, it was taken on file as C.C.No.69 of 2013. It is now pending against the petitioners. It is seeking quashment of Annexure-2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.69 of 2013 that this Crl.M.C has been filed. **Crl.M.C.1041/13** 2 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 at whose instance Annexure-1 FIR was registered has now filed Annexure-3 affidavit, in this case. As stated earlier, after completion of the investigation in the aforesaid crime, Annexure-2 report was laid and the case against the petitioners is now pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally against them as C.C.No.69 of 2013. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent and Annexure-3 affidavit 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 parties, it has been decided to move a joint petition for dissolution of the marriage between the second respondent and the first petitioner under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 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 have been settled between the parties. **Crl.M.C.1041/13** 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 Hariyana (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 **Crl.M.C.1041/13** 4 settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and 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.69 of 2013 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 CrlM.C is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-II final report laid in crime No.459 of 2012 of Karunagappally Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.69 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally are hereby quashed. ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1041/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **Crl.M.C.1041/13** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**