Mahesh Raghavan, Vijaya Raghavan, Mallika, Aneesh Raghavan v. Divya S and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/27TH PHALGUNA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 5807 of 2013 () --------------------------CRIME NO. 20/2012 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANDAPURAM -------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** - **----------------------------** **1. MAHESH RAGHAVAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, 29, MALLIKA BHAVAN, K.P.XI/56, V.V.NAGAR, N.C.C ROAD, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, AGED 68 YEARS,** - **S/O.KESAVAN, 29, MALLIKA BHAVAN, K.P.XI/56, V.V.NAGAR, N.C.C ROAD, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **3. MALLIKA, AGED 60 YEARS,** - **W/O.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, 29, MALLIKA BHAVAN, K.P.XI/56, V.V.NAGAR, N.C.C ROAD, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **4. ANEESH RAGHAVAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, 29, MALLIKA BHAVAN, K.P.XI/56, V.V.NAGAR, N.C.C ROAD, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **-----------------------------------------** **1. DIVYA.S, D/O.N.RAJENDRAN, SOORYA, T.C.10/1068, ARA - 100, VALIYABHAGAM GARDENS, MANNANTHALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 015.** **2. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 031.** **R1 BY ADVS. SMT.K.KUSUMAM SMT.RENY ANTO R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE P** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **Crl.MC.No. 5807 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)'**|**EXHIBITS**||| |---|---|---|---| |**-----------------------**|||| |**ANNEXURE I:**|**TRUE COPY**|**OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT**|| ||**DATED 09/07/2012.**||| |**ANNEXURE II:**|**TRUE COPY**|**OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION**|| ||**DATED 20/11/2013.**||| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**EXHIBITS**|**:**|**NIL.**| |**-----------------------**|||| ||||**//TRUE COPY//**| ||||**P.A. TO JUDGE**| ## **BP** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5807 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.20/2012 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, to quash the proceedings, recording the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners are accused' in Crime No.20/2012 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, alleging offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 E, 66 D and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Now the matter has been settled between the parties in the 2 Crl.M.C. No.5807 of 2013 case, which was pending as M.C.No.39/2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, in a mediation, as per Annexure-II compromise petition, in which it was agreed between the parties that, all cases including the criminal cases will be withdrawn by the parties. Since, the case is in the crime stage, neither the police nor the court below will drop the proceedings. So the petitioners have no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order quashing Annexure-I first information report and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners by invoking the inherent powers conferred upon this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure the ends of justice.” 3. Earlier, the first respondent appeared and filed counter stating that, some of the conditions mentioned in the compromise have not been fulfilled and so the petition cannot be allowed. But later, the conditions were complied with and the counsel for the first respondent submitted that, since the conditions in the compromise have Crl.M.C. No.5807 of 2013 3 been fulfilled, the first respondent has no objection in allowing the application. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor also. 5. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, who is the wife of the first petitioner, crime No.20/2012 was registered by Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 E, 66 D and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The investigation is not completed. It is also an admitted fact that, between the first petitioner and the first respondent, there was another case as M.C.No.39/2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. In that case, the matter has been settled and Annexure-AII, compromise petition was filed and that case was disposed of on that basis. It is on that basis, that the present petition has been field. But at the Crl.M.C. No.5807 of 2013 4 time, when the petition was field and notice was served on the first respondent, the matter has not been completely settled, and condition No.6 mentioned in the compromise petition has not been complied with and it was posted for compliance of that condition for some time. Now both sides submitted that, the document as mentioned in condition No.6 in Annexure-A2 has been executed and the documents were handed over to the first respondent. So, the first respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings. 6. It is a matrimonial dispute, which resulted in registering of the crime. Though certain offences under the Information Technology Act were also incorporated, the parties have amicably settled those issues as well and the impugned articles have been handed over to the first respondent and she is satisfied with the same. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the investigation, as the first respondent is not going to support the investigation in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Further, there is a condition in the compromise that, in Crl.M.C. No.5807 of 2013 5 view of the settlement, the first respondent will withdraw all the cases including the criminal cases filed by her against her husband and relatives, who are the petitioners herein. 7. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “In family disputes, if the parties have settled the issues, due to the intervention of well-wishers and the family members and does not want to proceeded with the criminal prosecution initiated, then that must be honoured and the prosecution has to be quashed, invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code.” 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, it is a family dispute, which resulted in registering the crime and that has been settled between the parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, in view of the settlement, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the first Crl.M.C. No.5807 of 2013 6 respondent due to the intervention of the family members and also to provide a better future life for both the parties and this case should not be a hurdle for that. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.20/2012 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned magistrate court, namely, Chief Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, so as to inform the concerned police Station for further action in this regard. With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss