Muhammad Ali @ B.Ali s/o. Bappu Haji v. State of Kerala and C. M. Khadeeja

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013/17TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2171 of 2013 ()** **------------------------------------CC 343/2012 of JUDICIALM FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT ,HOSDRUG . CRIME NO. 718/2005 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD.** **.....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ ACCUSED** **-------------------------------------** **MUHAMMAD ALI @ B.ALI S/O.BAPPU HAJI, MUBARAK MANZIL, VADAKKARAMUKKU BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SMT.T.SUDHAMANI SRI.T.P.UNNIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE - FACTO COMPLAINT** **------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. C. M. KHADEEJA, AGED 36 YEARS** **D/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, THOUSEEF QUARTERS, BALLA VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT.,** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2171 of 2013 ()** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)'** **-------------------------------------** ## **ANNEX.I:-CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO 718/05 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION.** **ANNEX.II:-TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIOERN AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **ANNEX.III:-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD 25/3/2013.** **ANNEX.IV:-AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2171 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 8[th] day of July, 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 petitioner, who is an accused in C.C.No.343/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Hosdurg which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 718/2005 of Hosdurg Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.343/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner married the 2[nd] respondent on 20/9/1990 as per the custom prevailing in their community and while living together as husband and wife at the house of the petitioner, the 1[st] accused ill treated the defacto complainant and the petitioner and the defacto complainant shifted their residence to a rented building. Two children were borne in the wed lock. It is alleged that the petitioner used to ill treat the defacto complainant. As **Crl.M.C.No. 2171 of 2013** 2 the petitioner did not maintained the defacto complainant and the children the defacto complainant along with the children and her brother went to the house of the petitioner on 27/11/2005 at that time accused Nos.1 and 2 manhandled the defacto complainant. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. The second respondent, defacto complainant has sworn into Annexure-A2 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 5. The learned counsel for the second 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 petitioner and she has no grievance against him. **Crl.M.C.No. 2171 of 2013** 3 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 Section 498 A of 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner 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:- **Crl.M.C.No. 2171 of 2013** 4 “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. 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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2171 of 2013** 5 _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 terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law, in order_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2171 of 2013** 6 _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. 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 matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2171 of 2013** 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 343/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Hosdurg. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS