Prem Kannoth and Rajalakshmi Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Prafulla Raghuthaman

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2013/2ND CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1365 of 2013 () --------------------------- CC.687/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I, KANNUR CRIME NO. 1625/2011 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ----------------------------- ## 1. PREM KANNOTH, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, SAI JYOTHI THALIKKAVU, KANNUR- 670 001. 2. RAJALAKSHMI BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 80 YEARS SAI JYOTHI, THALIKKAVU, KANNUR- 670 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVI SANKAR RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031. 2.PRAFULLA RAGHUTHAMAN,D/O RAGHUTHAMAN AGED 46 YEARS, MANJERIKANDY HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU POST KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 004. R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1365 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A:TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.1625 OF 2011 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-B:TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.3.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1365 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 23[rd] day of March, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and second respondent are man and wife and second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. It is the marital discord and the constant bickering that made the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code that resulted in the registration of crime No.1625 of 2011 of Kannur Town Police Station. Annexure-A is the final report laid in that crime and cognizance was taken thereon and it is now pending as C.C.687 of 2012 against the petitioners before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-A charge sheet laid in the said crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.687 of 2012 on the ground that the entire issues that constrained the second respondent to lodge complaint against the **Crl.M.C.1365/13** 2 petitioners have been settled amicably. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The second respondent, at whose instance crime No.1625 of 2010 of Kannur Town Police Station was registered and Annexure-A final report came to be laid, has now filed AnnexureB affidavit, in this case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent and Annexure-B affidavit would reveal that the lis involved in this case has been compromised and settled between the second respondent and the petitioners and that the case is purely private and personal in nature. It is also stated therein that the second respondent did not want to prosecute the petitioners and also got no objection in quashing Annexure-A charge sheet and also all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.C.No.687 of 2012. 3. True that an offence under Section 498A is not **Crl.M.C.1365/13** 3 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 the Indian Penal Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case where wife on settling the issues that led to the lodging of the complaint wants to settle in her life, there is no reason to decline exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, non-exercise of inherent power would defeat the purport behind introduction of Section 498A, it was further held. Going by the decision, the fact that Section 498A is noncompoundable 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 Court to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in appropriate cases. In such circumstances, when the wife had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime with her husband and his relatives and decided to settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C **Crl.M.C.1365/13** 4 to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and in such eventuality, it would certainly defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. The subsequent developments as mentioned above have made continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.687 of 2012 against the petitioners absolutely unnecessary. 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. In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. Annexure-A charge sheet laid in crime No.1625 of 2011 of Kannur Town Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.687 of 2012 pending against the petitioners before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1365/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **Crl.M.C.1365/13** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**