High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-01-05Quashed within the court’s order

Kailash, Shobhana and Shoma @ Kairali v. State represented by the Station House Officer, Parippally Police Station, Kollam District and Smt. Vidya V. @ Pooja D/o Vimal

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 2575 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2017-01-05
Court Decision / Holding: Quashed; Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 2242/2013 and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed within the court’s order

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kailash
Shobhana
Shoma @ Kairali

Respondents

State represented by the Station House Officer, Parippally Police Station, Kollam District through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Smt. Vidya V. @ Pooja D/o Vimal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. B. Mohanlal

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. C.N. Prabhakaran
• Adv. Sri. A. Sanil Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.MC No. 2575 of 2016) was decided by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V on 5 January 2017. The petitioners, Kailash, Shobhana and Shoma @ Kairali, faced charges arising from Crime No. 2242/2013 of the Parippally Police Station, initially including offences under sections 363, 366A, 376, 323 and 294(b) IPC read with 34. During investigation, those sections were deleted and the case was brought to focus on offences under 498A and 495 read with 34 IPC. The second respondent, Vidya V. @ Pooja, alleged a de facto relationship during the first petitioner’s minority, culminating in marriage in 2009; disputes later led to a family court settlement (Annexure A4) obligating the first petitioner to pay Rs. 3,00,000 with 12% interest as full and final settlement, with the second respondent asserting no further grievance (Annexure A5). The petition argues that, given the amicable settlement and no remaining grievance, continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process and should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The State Prosecutor advised quashing in light of settlement and lack of grievance. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents—Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Jitendra Raghuvanshi—to authorize quashing where disputes are amicably settled, observing the parties live peacefully and the funds have been deposited per order. The court ultimately quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 498AIPC 495 read with 34 IPCIPC 363IPC 366AIPC 376IPC 323IPC 294(b) read with 34CrPC 482

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the amicable settlement reached before the Family Court Attingal, coupled with the second respondent’s affidavit declaring no grievance, warrants quashing under Section 482 CrPC. They highlighted that the investigation had already revised the charges from the initial mix to 498A/495, and that continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process given the parties’ settlement and ongoing peaceful relationship.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, supported quashing, noting the amended charges and the amicable settlement, supported by the second respondent’s affidavit stating no grievance. The respondents argued that the court should exercise caution, but ultimately assented to quashing in light of settlement and the absence of ongoing grievance.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(10) SCC 303	Positive	Amicable settlements can justify termination of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in appropriate cases.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014(6) SCC 466	Positive	Affirms that settlements between victim and wrongdoer may justify quashing of proceedings to prevent futility and abuse of process.
Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi	2013(4) SCC 58	Positive	Encourages genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and supports use of 482 to terminate proceedings when parties settle.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kailash, Shobhana and Shoma @ Kairali v. State represented by the Station House Officer, Parippally Police Station, Kollam District and Smt. Vidya V. @ Pooja D/o Vimal and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/15TH POUSHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 2575 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **Bail Appl. 2807/2015 of THIS HON'BLE COURT CRIME NO. 2242/2013 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT** **---------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 :** **---------------------------** **1. KAILASH** - **S/O CHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 32 YEARS, ANJANAM, SREERAMAPURAM DESOM, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** **2. SHOBHANA** - **W/O CHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 49 YEARS, ANJANAM, SREERAMAPURAM DESOM, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** **3. SHOMA @ KAIRALI** - **D/O CHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 30 YEARS, ANJANAM, SREERAMAPURAM DESOM, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------** **1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SMT. VIDHYA V. @ POOJA D/O VIMAL, AGED 26 YEARS, CIRIL BHAVAN, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM, (FROM PUTTINGALAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MEVANAKONAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM-691001.)** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.SANIL KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2575 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**| |---| |**-----------------------**| |**ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND F.I.R IN**| |**CRIME NO.2242/20136 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE**| |**STATION REGISTERED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO.2807/2015**| |**DATED 17.4.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**ANNEXURE A3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO.111/2014**| |**DATED 16.1.2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**ANNEXURE A4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED INTO**| |**BETWEEN THE IST PETITIONER AND THE 2ND**| |**RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL**| |**IN O.P.NO.251/2014 DATED 13.4.2016.**| |**ANNEXURE A5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE**| |**2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED**| |**16.4.2016.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**<br>**:**<br>**NIL.**| |**//TRUE COPY//**| |**P.A. TO JUDGE**| ## **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2575 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of January, 2017** ## **O R D E R** 1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.2242 of 2013 of Parippally Police Station. They are accused of having committed offenses punishable under sections 498A & 495 read with 34 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation as per the earliest records is that while the 2[nd] respondent was a minor, she fell in love with the 1[st] petitioner and under the assurance of marriage, the 1[st] petitioner is alleged to have engaged in sexual relationship with the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent became pregnant and a child was born on 1.7.2007. After the birth of the child, the 1[st] petitioner went abroad. Later the 1[st] petitioner came back to Crl.M.C.2575/2016 2 India and married the 2[nd] respondent on 13.4.2009. According to the 2[nd] respondent, thereafter the 1[st] petitioner went to Coimbatore for employment and later she came to know that he had married another lady. Stating these allegations, the 2[nd] respondent herein filed Annexure-A1 complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paravoor. The said complaint was forwarded to the police under section 156(3) based on which initially a crime was registered under Section 363, 366A, 376, 323, 294(b) read with section 34 of the IPC. However, in the course of investigation, it was revealed that sections 363, 366A, 376, 323 and 294(b) read with section 34 of the IPC were not made out. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2[nd] respondent had filed petitions before the Family Court, Attingal seeking divorce as Crl.M.C.2575/2016 3 well as for realization of money and gold. In the course of proceedings before the Family Court, the disputes between the parties were settled. Reference is made to Annexure-A4 memorandum of agreement wherein it has been stated that the 1[st] petitioner herein would pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum to the 2[nd] respondent towards full and final settlement of all her claims. It is also undertaken by the 2[nd] respondent that she has not further grievance as against the 1[st] petitioner herein. 4.The 2[nd] respondent has also filed Annexure-A5 affidavit before this Court wherein she has unequivocally asserted that all the disputes have been resolved and that she has no subsisting grievance against the 1[st] petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that no further grievance subsist and that the 2[nd] respondent has no objection in Crl.M.C.2575/2016 4 allowing this petition and terminating the proceedings against the petitioners. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions has produced a statement of the Sub Inspector of Police, Parippally. From the statement it is revealed that during the course of investigation, certain sections were altered. Sections 363, 366(A), 376, 323 and 294 - (b) read with 34 of the IPC were deleted and offence under sections 498A, 495 read with 34 of the IPC has been incorporated. It is also submitted that a detailed statement of the 2[nd] respondent was recorded wherein she has stated that she has no grievance against the - 1[st] petitioner herein. - 6.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. - 7.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab.** Crl.M.C.2575/2016 5 **[** (2014) 6 SCC 466] the Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. Further in **Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Another** (2013) 4 SCC 58 it was observed that it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. If the parties ponder over their faults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, the courts should not hesitate to exercise its powers under section 482 of the Code. Permitting such proceedings to continue would be nothing but an abuse of process of court. - 8.In the case on hand, though initially the offence was registered inter alia under sections 376 and 366(A) of Crl.M.C.2575/2016 6 the IPC, it appears from the statement of the investigation officer that the aforesaid sections were deleted and only sections 498A and 495 is alleged against the petitioners herein. In view of the settlement arrived at before the Family Court, Attingal and in view of Annexure-A5 affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent herein, no purpose will be served in permitting the prosecution to continue. It is also revealed that the 2[nd] respondent has married another person and is living in peace and harmony with her husband and children. In that view of the matter also it is only just and proper that the proceedings are quashed at the threshold itself. - 9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submit that in terms of the directions of this Court, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited as evidenced by Annexure-A6. The same has been deposited before Crl.M.C.2575/2016 7 the Family Court, Attingal. In terms of the order dated 15.11.2016, the amount shall be released to the 2[nd] respondent on her filing proper application before the court below. 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.2242 of 2013 of Parippally Police Station and all proceddings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps