Johnson @ Johns kutty Joseph and others v. State of Kerala and Rosily

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3723 of 2013 () --------------------------CC 123/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANJIRAPPALLY CRIME NO. 35/2011 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1,2 AND 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHNSON @ JOHNSKUTTY JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MANIYANCHIRAKUNNEL, CHENKAL VAZHOOR EAST.P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ## 2. LILLYKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS D/O.JOSEPH, MANIYANCHIRAKUNNEL, CHENKAL VAZHOOR EAST.P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ## 3. THRESSIAMMA, AGED 88 YEARS W/O.JOSEPH, MANIYANCHIRAKUNNEL, CHENKAL VAZHOOR EAST.P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ ## 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2. ROSILY,, AGED 38 YEARS W/O.JOHNSON @ JOHNSKUTTY JOSEPH, MANIYANCHIRAKUNNEL CHENKAL, VAZHOOR EAST.P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-680507. R2 BY ADV. D.KISHORE R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3723 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------ ANNEXURE-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR.IN CRIME NO.35/2011 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.123/2011,BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTII,KANJIRAPPALLY (IN CRIME NO.35/2011 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION) ANNEXURE-3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.8.2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------- NIL //True copy// P.A.to Judge uj. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3723 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 2[nd] day of September, 2013 ## **ORDER** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.125/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally which is a case instituted upon the police report for the offences punishable under Section 498 A and r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure-2 final report in C.C.No.123/2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally (in Crime No.35/2011 of the Manimala Police Station) as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the first accused married the defacto complainant and thereafter the accused demanding more dowry and accusing her that she is not pretty enough and thus harassed her mentally and physically and thus according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 498 A and r/w Section 34 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the above case the entire disputes with the second respondent who is the defacto complainant is **Crl.M.C. No. 3723 of 2013** 2 settled and now the first petitioner and the second respondent are leading a happy marital life. The second respondent, defacto complainant had sworn into Annexure -3 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light **Crl.M.C. No. 3723 of 2013** 3 of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 498 A and r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Honourable Apex Court, in the decision reported in **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others** v. **Babita Raghuvanshi and another** [2013 (1) KLD 817(SC)], has held as follows:- “7 _. It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C. not only against_ **Crl.M.C. No. 3723 of 2013** 4 _the husband but also against the relatives of the husband. The question is when such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both the sides approached the High Court and jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C., whether the prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since the offences are noncompoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint._ _8. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise before the Trial Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in additional to the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent/wife has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants and fully supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that no only the Trial Court rejected such_ **Crl.M.C. No. 3723 of 2013** 5 _prayer of the parties but also the High Court failed toe exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on the ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are noncompoundable in nature.”_ _“12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings._ _13. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the Courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised_ **Crl.M.C. No. 3723 of 2013** 6 _sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.”_ In the present case, the only offence involved is under Section 498A of I.P.C. The criminal proceedings for the said offence originated from the matrimonial issues, which are now settled. Consequently, the parties want a quietus to the criminal case as well. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision will be squarely applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of 7 ## **Crl.M.C. No. 3723 of 2013** the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Crl.M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.123/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE**