K.G. Pradeep and others v. Sreeja and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: M.R. Anitha
Judgment Date: 2021-12-22
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 and Crl.R.P.No.1320/2015 allowed; the order dated 21.08.2014 in M.C.No.29/2012 as modified by Crl.Appeal No.348/2014 dated 20.07.2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad, is quashed; the revision petitions are closed.
Final Disposition: Criminal revision petitions allowed; orders quashed; proceedings closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.G. Pradeep
Vijayakumari
V Komallavally

Respondents

Sreeja d/o C.K. Unnikrishnan
Privarshana (minor) represented by mother
State of Kerala (Public Prosecutor)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.K. Mohanan (Palakkad)

Counsels for Respondents

• K.M. Kurian
• Renjit George, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated judgment of two criminal revision petitions under Section 401 CrPC arising from maintenance proceedings and a domestic violence case in Palakkad. The petitioners, K.G. Pradeep, Vijayakumari, and V. Komallavally, challenged orders passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Palakkad) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which directed the petitioners to provide an advance rental amount and monthly maintenance. The underlying dispute stems from MC No. 29/2012 (filed by Sreeja, a wife, seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC) and related family-law proceedings. The parties eventually approached the High Court for quashing the domestic-violence proceedings in light of a mutual settlement and an intended Section 13B divorce by mutual consent. The first respondent’s affidavit, on behalf of the minor Privarshana, attested to settlement mediated with the petitioners and no subsisting grievances. Citing the precedent in Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala, the court noted that subsequent settlements can justify quashing criminal proceedings. Ultimately, the court allowed the applications to quash the proceedings, quashed the earlier orders in MC 29/2012 as modified, and closed the revision petitions. The decision underscores the law that settlement between parties can terminate criminal proceedings in DV and related matters, subject to the court’s scrutiny of the affidavits and mutual consent.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 Cr.P.C.Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage ActCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend amicable settlement of all issues arising from the DV proceedings and maintenance disputes, including a proposed divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. They seek quashing of the entire MC No.29/2012 proceedings and the connected revision petitions in light of mutual consent and no subsisting grievance from the first respondent.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that there is a settled arrangement with mediation, the minor’s interests are safeguarded, and hence the proceedings may be quashed. They rely on the joinder of the parties and the absence of grievances, citing precedent that settlements can justify quashing criminal proceedings in similar contexts.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala & Anr	2013(2) KHC 569	Positive	The court relied on this precedent to affirm that subsequent settlement between parties can justify quashing criminal proceedings.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 1ST POUSHA, 1943 ``` ## **`CRL.REV.PET NO. 1154 OF 2015`** ## **`CRA 348/2014 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT`** ## **`CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD`** ``` MC 29/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,PALAKKAD ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 K.G.PRADEEP, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.K P GOPALARISHNAN, KUNDUKADVEEDU, KALIPPARA, KOTTEKKAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT`** - **`2 VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED 40 YEARS W/O..K P GOPALARISHNAN, KUNDUKADVEEDU, KALIPPARA, KOTTEKKAD , KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT`** - **`3 V KOMALAVALLY, AGED 42 YEARS D/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUNDUKADVEEDU, KALIPPARA, KOTTEKKAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT`** ``` BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND STATE:`** - **`1 U.SREEJA, AGED 37 YEARS D/O.C K UNNIKRISHNAN, KULAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD, PIN 678733`** - **`2 PRIVARSHANA, AGED 12 YEARS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER FIRST RESPONDENT KULAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD, PIN 678733`** - **`3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKLAM, PIN 31`** ``` BY ADV SRI.K.M.KURIAN ``` ``` BY ADV RENJIT GEORGE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 22.12.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1320/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` CRL.R.P.1154/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.1320 OF 2015 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 1ST POUSHA, 1943 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 1320 OF 2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 348/2014 OF I ADDITIONAL ``` ``` DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS ``` ## **`TRIBUNAL ,PALAKKAD`** ``` MC 29/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,PALAKKAD ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** - **`1 SREEJA D/O. C.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, KULAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD.`** ``` 2PRIVARSHANA AGED 8 YEARS MINOR, D/O. K.G.PRADEEP, RESIDING AT KULAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, THE FIRST PETITIONER. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.K.M.KURIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:`** - **`1 K.G.PRADEEP AGED 45 YEARS S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, KUNDUKADU VEEDU, KALIPPARA KOTTEKKAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD, PIN-678732.`** - **`2 VIJAYAKUMARI AGED 45 YEARS W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, KUNDUKADU VEEDU, KALIPPARA KOTTEKKAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD, PIN-678732.`** ``` 3 ``` ``` CRL.R.P.1154/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.1320 OF 2015 ``` - **`3 V.KOMALLAVALLY AGED 40 YEARS D/O. VELAYUDHAN, KUNDUKADU VEEDU, KALIPPARA KOTTEKKAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD, PIN-678732.`** - **`4 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.`** ``` BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1154/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`CRL.R.P.1154/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.1320 OF 2015`** ## **ORDER** ## **[Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.1154/2015 and Crl.R.P.No. 1320/2015]** The revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.1154 of 2015 are the respondents in MC No. 29 of 2012 and petitioners in Crl.R.P.No. 1320 of 2015 is the petitioners in MC No. 29 of 2012. 2. M.C.No.281 of 2009 has been filed before the family court Palakkad by the first respondent/petitioner in MC No.29 of 2012, seeking for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Prosedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') and obtained an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- to the first respondent and Rs.1,500/- to the child. That matter was taken up in revision before this court in RP(FC) No.77 of 2012 and as per the order dated 5.12.2012, this court modified the maintenance to Rs.3,000 and Rs.1,250 respectively and that order is in force now. 3. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the first respondent filed the present MC No.29 of 2012 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, 2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad. An order was passed on 21.08.2014 by the learned ``` 5 ``` ## **`CRL.R.P.1154/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.1320 OF 2015`** Magistrate restraining the petitioners from committing any act of domestic violence against the respondents and further directed to give an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- for a rental house and also to make payments at the rate of Rs.5,000/ as monthly rent. Against which the petitioners filed Crl.A.No.384 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad and that was made over to Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge again as per order dated 20.07.2015, partly allowed the appeal. Against which the petitioners filed Crl.R.P.No.1154 of 2015 and the petitioner in MC filed Crl.R.P. No.1320 of 2015. 4. When the case came up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that parties has amicably settled the entire issues. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners in both cases submitted that petitioners amicably settled the entire issues and Section 13B petition has been filed for divorce by mutual consent by first petitioner herein and the first respondent herein and that is pending. 5. In pursuance of the same, they filed Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154 of 2015 for quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioners. ``` 6 ``` ## **`CRL.R.P.1154/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.1320 OF 2015`** 6. The first respondent/wife of the first petitioner filed affidavit wherein she categorically stated that herself and her husband (first petitioner herein) agreed to file a divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and that has already been filed. She filed Mat.Appeal No.19/2014 against the husband and his mother before this Hon'ble Court. She has already withdrawn Mat.Appeal No.19/2014 filed against the husband and his mother. Herself and her daughter has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and she does not want any of the reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners. In the said circumstanes, she seeks for quashing the further proceedings in MC No.29 of 2012 which has been modified in Crl.A.No.348 of 2015. 7. In **Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala & Another (2013(2) KHC 569),** a learned Single Judge had considered an identical situation. In that, against concurrent finding of an offence under Section 498A IPC, criminal revision petition was filed wherein quashing of criminal proceedings in revisional stage on the ground of settlement between the parties came up for ``` 7 ``` ## **`CRL.R.P.1154/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.1320 OF 2015`** consideration and it has been held that in view of the subsequent settlement between the parties, the proceedings can be quashed. 8. In this case also, revision petitioners filed Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2021 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order in M.C.No.29/2012 dated 21.08.2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class magistrate Court-III Palakkad, modified by the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.348 of 2014 dated 20.07.2015 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palakkad. 9. The first respondent filed affidavit for and on behalf of the minor daughter stating about the settlement of the matrimonial issues with the intervention of mediators. Hence, she also sought for quashing the order passed in M.C.No.29/2012 as modified in Crl.Appeal No.348 of 2014. In the result, Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2021 is hereby allowed and the order passed in M.C.No.29/2012 dated 21.08.2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad as modified in Crl.Appeal No.348/2014 dated 20.07.2015 on the file of ``` CRL.R.P.1154/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.R.P.No.1154/2015 & Crl.R.P.No.1320 OF 2015 ``` ``` 8 ``` Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palakkad is hereby quashed. Accordingly, these Crl.revision petitions stand closed. **Sd/-** **M.R.ANITHA JUDGE** nkr