High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-05-23Quashed; final report and all further proceedin...

Parameswaran v. State of Kerala and Devika

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.1555/13

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-05-23
Court Decision / Holding: The CRL.M.C is allowed. Annexure-C final report in Crime No. 224/2006 of Perumpadappu Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto in CC No. 284/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; final report and all further proceedings in the connected case are set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Parameswaran

Respondents

State of Kerala
Devika

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Rajesh Sivaraman Kutty

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. K. Anila

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1555 of 2013) filed in the Kerala High Court by Parameswaran, the first accused, seeking quashment of proceedings in Crime No. 224/2006 of the Perumpadappu Police Station and CC No. 284/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani. The dispute between the petitioner and his wife, the second respondent Devika, had been marked by long-standing discord culminating in a complaint under sections 406 and 498A read with section 34 IPC. Annexure-C records the final report in the criminal case. The petitioner substantiates that the parties have amicably settled their issues, reconciled, and are now living together with their two children, as per Annexure-D sworn affidavit. While Section 498A is non-compoundable, the Supreme Court decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab are invoked to emphasize that the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate proceedings in cases where settlement and reconciliation have occurred and continued prosecution would thwart the objective of preserving the matrimonial bond. On these facts, the court concludes that continued proceedings are unnecessary and may adversely affect the marital relationship. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the final report, along with all further proceedings, is quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC - Sec. 406IPC - Sec. 498AIPC - Sec. 34Cr.P.C. - Sec. 482Cr.P.C. - Sec. 320Chapter XXA of IPC (Section 498A)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Non-compoundability of Section 498A with possible exercise of inherent power to terminate proceedings
Duty to preserve the institution of marriage and terminate unnecessary proceedings in matrimonial disputes
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 4 KLT 108 (SC)
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC))

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the matrimonial discord has been amicably resolved, and continued criminal proceedings would be a needless harassment, contrary to the objective of justice. He relies on the settled position in B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh that the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to protect the larger interest of the parties and the institution of marriage, especially where settlement has been reached between spouses and there is evidence of reconciliation (Annexure-D). Though 498A is non‑compoundable, the court should not allow the proceedings to obstruct reconciliation or the peaceful life of the family.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents confirm the amicable settlement evidenced by Annexure-D and support the quashing of proceedings in the interest of preserving the marriage and family harmony. They rely on the same precedents to argue that quashing promotes the legitimate aim of resolving matrimonial disputes and preventing prolonged litigation, without compromising substantive justice.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support the use of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in the interest of settling matrimonial disputes and preserving marriage, despite non‑compoundability concerns.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to justify that High Courts have a duty to terminate unnecessary proceedings to protect the institution of marriage upon settlement between parties.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Parameswaran v. State of Kerala and Devika and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2013/2ND JYAISHTA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1555 of 2013 () --------------------------CC. 284/2007 of J.M.F.C., PONNANI CRIME NO. 224/2006 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/IST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- PARAMESWARAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.KUNHUNNI, EMPLOYED IN MUSANA, P.B.NO.314 MUSCAT, PERMANENT RESIDENT AT THALAKKATT HOUSE PURANGU AMSOM, DESOM, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM 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. DEVIKA, AGED 43 YEARS W/O.PARAMESWARAN, THALAKKATT HOUSE, PURANGU AMSOM, DESOM PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.ANILA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.1555/13 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: - ANNEXURE A:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AS CMP.NO.4204/2006 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PONNANI. - ANNEXURE B:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.224/2006 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION. - ANNEXURE C:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT TAKEN ON FILE AS C.C.NO.284/2007 ON THE FILE OF JMFC, PONNANI. ANNEXURE D:SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.4.2013 FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1555 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2013 ## **ORDER** The petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. They had been at loggerheads for the past several years and evidently, it is discordancy and conflicts between the petitioner and the second respondent that compelled the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offences under sections 406 and 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.224 of 2006 of Perumpadappu Police Station was registered based on her complaint and Annexure-C is the final report laid in the said crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-C final report laid in the said crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.284 of 2007 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani on the ground that the entire issues and disputes that constrained the second respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioner have now, been **Crl.M.C.1555/13** 2 settled amicably. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that after such settlement, the parties have started living together along with the two children born in their wedlock and the said fact is evident from Annexure-D affidavit filed by the second respondent, in this petition. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perusing Annexure-D affidavit sworn in by the second respondent it leaves no doubt regarding the fact that the entire issues had been settled amicably and that the petitioner and the second respondent have decided to preserve and protect the institution of marriage. True that an offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the decision in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)),** taking into account the intent behind the introduction of Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in **Crl.M.C.1555/13** 3 the Indian Penal Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case where wife concerned on settling the issues that led to the lodging of the complaint wanted to settle her life, declining exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would prevent her from settling in her life and in such circumstances, non-exercise of inherent power would defeat the purport behind introduction of Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code. Going by the said decision, the fact that Section 498A is non-compoundable and the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. prohibits compounding of any offence except otherwise than in terms of the provisions under that section cannot and will not limit or affect the powers of the High Courts to exercise the inherent power under Section 482Cr.P.C., in appropriate cases. In such circumstances, when the wife had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime against her husband and decided to settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and in such eventuality, it would certainly **Crl.M.C.1555/13** 4 defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. The subsequent developments, as mentioned above, would suggest that disinclination to exercise inherent power would prevent the second respondent from leading a peaceful life with her husband and children. In view of the admitted factual position, continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.284 of 2007 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani has become absolutely unnecessary. I am also of the view that compelling its continuance would put the matrimonial tie between the petitioner and the second respondent in astringent. When the attempt of the parties is to preserve and protect the institution of marriage, this Court has a duty to create a conducive situation for the couple concerned to succeed in their attempt. In such circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** reported in [ **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it is the duty of this Court to terminate such unnecessary proceedings. **Crl.M.C.1555/13** 5 In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. Annexure-C final report laid in Crime No.224 of 2006 of Perumpadappu Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.284 of 2007 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1555/13** 6 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** 7 # **Crl.M.C.1555/13**