P.G. Jose v. State of Kerala and Elizabeth & Litty

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/2ND KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6011 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.50/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **......** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **P.G. JOSE, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, PULINIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, KOODAL P.O., KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA (DIST.).** **BY ADV. SMT.L.SMITHARAJ.** ## **RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **2. ELIZABETH & LITTY, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.RACHEL, ERETTAKOICKAL HOUSE, THANNITHODU. P.O., THANNITHODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GITHESH. R. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.MANOJ KUMAR.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6011 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.139/2002 DATED 14/08/2002 REGISTERED BY KOODAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 15/01/2014. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of October, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The above captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C) has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-A2 Final Report in impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.139/2002 of Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta District which has led to the institution of C.C.No.50/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings arising therefrom. The 2[nd] respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The gist of the allegations is that after their marriage, the petitioner had physically and mentally harassed the defacto complainant demanding more dowry which led to the registration of the impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.139/2002 of Koodal Police Station registered for offence under Section 498A. After investigation, police submitted the impugned Annexure-A2 Final Report/Charge Sheet in the impugned Annexure-A1 crime. The defacto complainant came and adduced evidence in support of the prosecution and later matrimonial disputes ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014** were settled and now the defacto complainant is abroad and she is not in a position to appear before the court below and that the long pendency of the case before the court below will affect the peaceful life of the petitioner etc. The 2[nd] respondent has sworn to an affidavit dated 20.10.2014 produced as Annexure-A3 in this Crl.M.C stating that after the marriage between the parties in November, 1998 they have been living separately since 24.6.2000 and due to the unsolved problems in marital life, she filed divorce petition in the year 2002 and consequent to which she married another person, that on 14.8.2002 she has lodged the complaint against the petitioner which had led to registration of impugned crime and the submission of the final report which in turn led to pendency of C.C.No.50/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta and that all the disputes have been settled and she has no complaint against the petitioner and she does not want to proceed with the impugned proceedings and that she has no objection in quashing C.C.No.50/2009 etc. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances, this Crl.M.C has been filed. ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014** 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.M.Manoj Kumar has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent State of Kerala. 3. Heard Smt.L.Smitha Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the controversy have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 5. Sri.M.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent has submitted, on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2[nd] respondent, that the 2[nd] ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014** respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner as stated above and that she has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as she has no grievance against him and that she will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that the court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy, which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014** by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]: _“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in 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 S.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.._ ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly 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_ ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014** _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........”_ Further, in the case _**Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others** v._ _**Babita Raghuvanshi and another**_ reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 [see 2013 (1) KLD 817 (SC)], the Apex Court has held as follows:- “8 _. 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 non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint._ 9 _. 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 wellwishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/_ ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014** _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 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 non-compoundable in nature._ _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 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._ _16. 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 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_ ::8:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014** _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.”_ 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the matrimonial disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not ::9:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6011 Of 2014** be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned Annexure-A2 Final Report in Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.139/2002 of Koodal Police Station which has led to filing of C.C.No.50/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer concerned. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-