: null

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/17TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1990 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 515/2008 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** **-------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 :** **------------------------------------------------** **1. SYAMALAKUMARAN, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.APPUKUTTAN, PARAPPANA HOUSE, KINASSERY PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. APPUKUTTAN, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.CHAMI, PARAPPANA HOUSE, KINASSERY PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **3. RUGMINI, AGED 57 YEARS** - **W/O.APPUKUTTAN, PARAPPANA HOUSE, KINASSERY PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **4. SUJITH, AGED 31 YEARS** - **S/O.APPUKUTTAN, PARAPPANA HOUSE, KINASSERY PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. VIPIN DAS, S/O.SIVADAS, AGED 42 YEARS** **KAZCHAPARAMBU, KANNADI PALAKKAD.** ## **3. VINEESH,** - **S/O.SIVADAS, AGED 26 YEARS** - **KAZCHAPARAMBU, KANNADI PALAKKAD** **4. SIVADASAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.KITTA, KAZCHAPARAMBU, KANNADI PALAKKAD** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1990 of 2014 () -2-** ## **5. SATHYA JYOTHI, S/O.ANDIMUTHU, AGED 37 YEARS ATHIKODE, KOZHINJAMPARA PALAKKAD** ## **6. BABU,** - **S/O.KUNCHU, AGED 30 YEARS** - **VADAKKU, KINASSERY PALAKKAD** ## **7. VINEETHA,** **W/O.SYAMALAKUMARAN, AGED 29 YEARS PARAPPANA HOUSE, KINASSERY PALAKKAD.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** **Crl.MC.No. 1990 of 2014 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : --------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.515/2008 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.** **ANNEXURE-A2: AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 DATED 23.3.2014.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE Mn** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1990 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 7[th] day of April, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.74/2009 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad to quash the proceedings on account of the settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.74/2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad. The case was originally registered on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent herein, against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 324, 427, 341 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.74/2009 and it is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad. In fact, it was a matrimonial dispute between the 7[th] respondent and the first petitioner, that resulted in the incident. Now due to intervention of mediators, the entire Crl.M.C.No.1990 of 2014 2 dispute has been resolved and they are now living together. The injured in the case is none other than the brother of the 7[th] respondent, and in view of the subsequent developments in order to bring harmony in the family relationship, he does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioners and also wanted to promote harmony that has been restored on account of the settlement between the the first respondent and the 7[th] respondent. So no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file application before the court below. So the petitioners have 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 this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.74/2009, arising out of Crime No.515/2008 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad, on the files of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad, so as to secure the ends of justice. 3. When the application came up for hearing, the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 submitted that the matter has Crl.M.C.No.1990 of 2014 3 been settled between the parties and they do not want to prosecute the petitioners in view of the settlement and they filed Annexure A2 series affidavit stating these facts. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners and it was a family dispute. Though a counter case was registered in respect of the same incident at the instance of one of the petitioners, after investigation it was referred as a false case and opposed the application on the ground that the offence under Section 326 has been committed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case and he prayed for allowing the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that the first petitioner is the husband of the 7[th] respondent and at the time of the incident, the relationship was not cordial and the petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 7 are related by marriage of the first petitioner with the 7[th] respondent. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Crime No.515/2008 of Town South police station, Palakkad was registered and after investigation Anneure A1 final report 4 Crl.M.C.No.1990 of 2014 was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.74/2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad and it is pending before that court. Now the mater has been settled between the parties. Respondents 2 to 7, who are the defacto complainants and other injured persons filed Annexure A2 series affidavits stating that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of family members and relatives and friends and now the 7[th] respondent is living with the first petitioner, who is her husband, and in view of the fact that maritable dispute has been settled and the first petitioner and the 7[th] respondent are living together, they do not want to prosecute the present case and it should not a hurdle for their happy married life as well. So considering the fact that maritable relationship between the first petitioner and the 7[th] respondent has been restored on account of the settlement and both the parties felt that pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same, they have decided to settle the claim and does not want to prosecute the case, no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue as neither the defacto complainants nor other witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. 5 Crl.M.C.No.1990 of 2014 ## 7. 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 predominatingly 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 6 Crl.M.C.No.1990 of 2014 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.” 8. In view of the above decision and considering the fact that the entire incident happened due to some matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the 7[th] respondent and the matter has been now settled and they are living together, 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 has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote harmony that has been restored between the first petitioner and the 7[th] respondent and this case will not be a hurdle for their happy married live. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.74/2009 (Crime No.515/2008 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad as against the petitioners are quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Crl.M.C.No.1990 of 2014 7 concerned court immediately for necessary further action in this regard . **Sd/-** **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge