# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA**
**THURSDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943**
**CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021**
**CRIME NO.509/2012 OF Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 404/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I MUVATUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM**
## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:**
1 PAUL MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, MAMBALLIKUZHI HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 673. 2 MATHEW, AGED 76 YEARS, MAMBALLIKUZHI HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY, MUVATUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 673. 3 MARY, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.MATHEW, MAMBALLIKUZHI HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY, MUVATUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 673. BY ADVS. BOBBY GEORGE JOY C. PAUL
## **RESPONDENTS:(STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT):**
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2 SUSAN PAUL, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.PAUL MATHEW, MAMBALLIKUZHI HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY, MUVATUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 673. BY ADV AVINASH K.KRISHNAN SMT.SEETHA S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021 -2-
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021 -3-
## **ORDER**
Crl.M.C.has been filed by the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.404/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, registered under Section 498A and 34 IPC. The case has been registered on the basis of Private Complaint filed by the De facto complainant/the 2[nd] respondent, which was forwarded to the Muvattupuzha Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
2. The first petitioner is the husband and second and third petitioners are the father in law and and mother in law of the second respondent. The marriage was on 06.05.2002 at St.George Jacobite Church in accordance with Christian religious rites and ceremonies. Subsequently, their relationship strained and copy of the complaint filed by the second respondent produced as Annexure 1 and copy of the FIR and Final Report/Charge
CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021 -4-
Sheet is produced as Annexure II and Annexure III. In the meantime 1[st] petitioner filed an O.P.(Divorce) 138/2012 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha and 2[nd] respondent filed O.P.742/2012 for return of gold ornaments and money and M.C.159/2012 is also filed for maintenance against the 1[st] petitioner by the 2[nd] respondent. GOP 1091/2012 also filed for custody of children. Now all the above cases are settled between the parties. 1[st] petitioner gave Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the 2[nd] respondent as full and final settlement.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, the de facto complainant that the issues between the parties had been resolved. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant has been taken and she also re-iterate the averments in the affidavit filed before this Court. The affidavit filed by the de facto complainant is produced as
CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021 -5-
Annexure IV. The 2[nd] respondent solemnly affirmed that she did not want to proceed with the case and has no objection in quashing the further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.404/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha.
4. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303 : 2012 KHC 4530)** a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procesure, 1973 has held that criminal cases having civil flavour and arising from commercial, financial merchantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes where wrong is private or personal in nature can be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties. Paragraph 57 of the said decision is relevant in this context to be extracted which reads as follows :-
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021 -6-
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing,
CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021 -7-
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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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.”
5. Since the entire issues between the parties have
been settled, the continuance of the proceedings against
CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021 -8-
the petitioners would be a futile exercise. Chances of coviction is very bleak and remote in view of the settlement and first accused already paid Rupees ten lakhs to the defacto complaianant and continuation of the Criminal case would put him to great oppression and prejudice. So I am of the view that ends of justice demands that the proceedings initiated and pending against the petitioners before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha is to be quashed.
6. In the result, Annexure III in C.C.No.404/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha is hereby quashed and Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Sd/-
**M.R.ANITHA**
**JUDGE**
vv
CRL.MC NO. 3444 OF 2021 -9-
## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3444/2021**
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure I
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 01/06/2012 IN THE JFCM I COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Annexure II THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 5/6/2012 OF MUVATTUPZHA POLICE STATION.
Annexure III
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE MUVATUPUZHA POLICE DATED 05/12/2012 IN THE JFCM I COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Annexure IV
THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAIANANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE ABOVE CASE DATED
