K.J. Joseph and Mathai K.J. v. Mercy Joseph and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** # **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2642 of 2013** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.3/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA** **...** **CRIME NO. 1224/2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** **...** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** ## **-------------------------------------** **1. K.J. JOSEPH,AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. K.M.JOSEPH, KANNAMPLALIL HOUSE, ERAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **2. MATHAI K.J., AGED 70 YEARS,** - **S/O. K.M.JOSEPH, KANNAMPLALIL HOUSE, ERAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA** ## **RESPONDENT-COMPLAINANT/INJURED & STATE:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. MERCY JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH, KANNAMPLALIL HOUSE, ERAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 569.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.** ## **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 2642 of 2013** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1224 OF 2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION DATED 11-10-2012.** **ANNEXURE A1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.13/10/2012.** **ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 23-10-2012 FILED IN CRIME NO. 1224 OF 2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF CJM, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **------------------------------------------------** **N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2642 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 28th day of June, 2013 ## **O R D E R** 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 2 in C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.1224 of 2012 of Pathanamthitta Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report and all other proceedings, in C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent solemnized on 4.7.1977 as per the Christian religious rites and rituals at Immanuel Marthoma church at Mundakkal. The second petitioner herein is the brother of the accused. According to the allegation after the marriage the first petitioner and the first respondent lived in the parental house of the first respondent. Two children were born out of the 2 **Crl.M.C.No.2642 of 2013** wedlock and the elder daughter is already married and second child is employed. As per the allegation the first petitioner was having illicit relationship with another women and when the de facto complainant questioned about, this she was manhandled by the accused persons and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498 A r/w 34 IPC. According to the petitioners the matter is settled out of court and now, the first petitioner as well as the first respondent are residing together. The first respondent sworn the affidavit dated 19.6.2013. Beside that a joint compounding petition dated 19.6.2013 is also filed which is signed by the first petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 counter signed by the respective counsels. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first 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. 3 **Crl.M.C.No.2642 of 2013** 5. The learned counsel for the first 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 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 under Section 498 A r/w 34 IPC 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 first respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has 4 **Crl.M.C.No.2642 of 2013** 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 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._ 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2642 of 2013** _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 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_ 6 **Crl.M.C.No.2642 of 2013** _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 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. 8. 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 7 **Crl.M.C.No.2642 of 2013** 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 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 -A2 final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. ## **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/ 8 **Crl.M.C.No.2642 of 2013**