Nahoka Kakikura and Sreekanth v. State of Kerala and Jayakrishnan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6556 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 713/2016 of JFCM, KALAMASSERY CRIME NO. 1713/2011 OF ELOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:** **---------------------------** **1. NAHOKA KAKIKURA AGED:46 YEARS, D/O MANASORI KAKIKURA, RESIDING AT EDAMPADAM ROAD, MANJUMMAL NRA-171,ERNAKULAM** **2. SREEKANTH AGED:42 YEARS, S/O SIVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-26** **BY ADV. SRI.K.K.ANIL KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031** **2. JAYAKRISHNAN AGED:54 YEARS, S/O SREEDHARAN T.K (LATE), RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIKETHAN, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA673604** **R2 BY ADV. SMT.R.LEELA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-102016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6556 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **----------------------ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD ISSUED BY THE LOK ADALATH DATED 15/3/2013** **ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO. 713/2016 DATED 21/5/2016 OF JFCM KALAMASERRY** **ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/9/2016** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **------------------------------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6556 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.713 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kalamassery. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 406, 424, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2.The 1[st] petitioner, who is a foreigner, fell in love with the 2[nd] respondent while he was working abroad. They got married and started living together in India. While so, the 1[st] petitioner secured the help of the 2[nd] petitioner to purchase a house and decided to shift to the said house with her minor daughter. The 2[nd] respondent in the said facts and circumstances, set the law in motion and got the Crl.M.C.6556/2016 2 crime registered as Crime No.1713 of 2011 of Eloor Police Station. After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional court and is now pending as aforesaid. - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent husband would submit that it was on the basis of a mistaken notion that he had submitted a statement and got the crime registered. It is submitted that the disputes have been amicably resolved. Reference is made to Annexure-A1 award passed by the Lok Adalath held on 15.3.2013. It appears from Annexure-A1 that the matrimonial disputes between the parties were settled and a compromise deed was executed. To crown it further, the 2[nd] respondent has sworn to an affidavit which is produced as Annexure-A3 wherein it is stated that the 1[st] petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent have been living together as husband and wife. According to him the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners Crl.M.C.6556/2016 3 would be a futile exercise. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. ## 6.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only Crl.M.C.6556/2016 4 that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 7.I also take note of the observation of the Apex Court in **Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Another (2013) 4 SCC 58** wherein it Crl.M.C.6556/2016 5 ## was held as follows: “15. 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 noncompoundable, 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. 16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. They 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 to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their 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 process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.” 8.The inherent power under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, _ex debito justitiae_ to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. I am of the view that that quashing Crl.M.C.6556/2016 6 of the instant proceeding would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. No purpose would be served in subjecting the parties to the ordeal of a protracted trial in view of the settlement. 9. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. All proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.713 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kalamassery are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps