M.B. Anaswera v. P.M. Shyamlal and State

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/16TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1475 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CR. NO. 165/2013 OF ELATHUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. .....** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **M.B. ANASWERA, D/O.BHASKARAN. T.P., AGED 25 YEARS, 'AISWARYA BHAVAN', ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE- 673 315.** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. P.M. SHYAMLAL, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, SHANTHINILAYAM, ANNASSERI P.O., KOZHIKODE- 673 317.** **2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAJITH. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1475 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** - **ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF FIR IN CR.NO.165/2013 OF ELATHUR POLICE. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF FIS ISSUED BY ELATHUR POLICE IN CR.NO.165/2013. ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE FACE-BOOK COMMENT POSTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION OA. NO.676 /13 U/S 13B OF H.M. ACT FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE.** - **ANNEXURE 5 AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1.** - **ANNEXURE 6 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 18/02/2014.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1475 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 7[th] day of March, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No.165/13 of Elathur police station to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that a crime was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the first respondent against the petitioner alleging that derogatory message has been published through face-book social network and thereby she had committed the offence punishable under Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act and a crime was registered as Crime No.165/2013 of Elathur police station and investigation is still in progress. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is none other than the wife of the first respondent and there were other cases pending between them in the family court and due to intervention of mediators and others, the entire disputes between them have been settled and they decided to part with as well. The respondent does not want to proceed Crl.M.C.No.1475 of 2014 2 with further prosecution in the case. Since investigation is in the prime stage, it is not possible to drop the proceedings by the police. There is no possibility of any conviction as well in view of the settlement. So the petitioner has no other option except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: _For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-1, the FIR in Cr.No.165/2013 of Elathur Police, Kozhikode dated 24.4.2012 so as to secure the ends of justice._ _3._ The first respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and all the disputes between them have been settled due to intervention of mediators and family members and Annexure A5 settlement was entered into between them and he does not want to prosecute the petitioner and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor,on instructions, as directed by this Court, submitted that the impugned publication could not be traced out and investigation is in preliminary stage and opposed the application. 3 Crl.M.C.No.1475 of 2014 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the first respondent were husband and wife and due to some misunderstanding in their family life, they fell apart and it is alleged in the complaint that misusing the face book social network, the petitioner had published some defamatory statement against the first respondent . But now the matter has been settled between the parties evidenced by Annexure A5 affidavit. Further, no incriminating articles have been so far recovered as well. In view of the fact that though it is a matter of serious social concern and now a days that internet domain has been misused by several persons and it has become a menace in the society which has to be seriously looked into and dealt with as it affect the life of several persons. But considering the fact that it is a matter between the wife and husband and they do not want to expose it further in view of the settlement arrived at between them, no purpose will be served in allowing the investigation to continue as well. 6. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and 4 Crl.M.C.No.1475 of 2014 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Further in the decision reported above, it has been held that if it is a family dispute between the parties and the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators, then that must be promoted by the courts and pendeny of a crime should not be a hurdle for such settlement. So considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and no purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to continue as even the investigating agency will not be able to collect materials to book the accused in the case Crl.M.C.No.1475 of 2014 5 and the prosecution will only a farse attempt and it will be a wastage of judicial time as well. So considering the circumstances, this court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner and the respondent to lead a happy life in future and this would not be a hurdle in their future life. So, the application is allowed and further proceeding in Crime No.165/2013 of Elathur police station against the petitioner evidenced by Annexure A1 is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court before whom the First Information Report is filed so as to inform the concerned police station for closing the case and take further action in this regard. ## **Sd/-** **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1475 of 2014 6