Reveendra Prasad and others v. State of Kerala and Sithara

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/21ST ASWINA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 5473 of 2014 (B) --------------------------CC 4261/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I, KOCHI CRIME NO.661/2011 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------- 1. REVEENDRA PRASAD, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, NIKATHIL THARA HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM ERNAKULAM 682 509. 2. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, NIKATHILTHARA HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM ERNAKULAM 682 509. ## 3. THILOTHEMA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN, NIKATHILTHARA HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM ERNAKULAM 682 509. 4. CHANDRAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KARIBAN, NIKATHILTHARA HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM ERNAKULAM 682 509. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SITHARA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.PADMANABHAN, KARODIYIL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O ERNAKULAM 682 505. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SIKHILMON S.V. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5473 of 2014 (B) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------- ANNEXURE-I. COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 15.6.11 NUMBERED AS CC 4261/11 OF HONOURABLE JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, KOCHI. ANNEXURE A2. COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 28.8.14 PASSED IN OP 2036/12 AND MC 296/12 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A3. COPY OF THE OP 1653/14 DATED 28.8.14 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C) has been filed with the prayer to quash Annexure-I Charge Sheet which is taken into file as C.C.No.4261/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.4261/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. The said Calender Case arose out of a private criminal complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent wife before the Magistrate Court as Crl.M.P.No.1315/2011 alleging offences under Sections 498(A), 403, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate Court forwarded the complaint under Section 156 Cr.P.C for investigation through the Sub Inspector of Police, Njarakkal Police Station, Ernakulam District consequent to which the police has registered Crime No.661/2011 for the aforementioned offences. The 1[st] petitioner/1[st] accused is the husband of the 2[nd] respondent and petitioners 2 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4 are the brother, mother and father of the 1[st] petitioner/1[st] accused. Annexure-1 is the charge sheet which ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** has resulted in C.C.No.4261/2011 before the above said Magistrate Court. The brief of the case is that the 1[st] petitioner/1[st] accused married the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant on 9.5.2010 after prolonged love affair between them and with the permission of both families as per the Hindu religious rites and there arose serious matrimonial disputes between the spouses which resulted in litigations before the Family Court concerned for return of gold ornaments and money and for maintenance etc. Spouses decided to amicably settle the disputes by resorting to file joint petition for divorce on mutual consent and award was passed in the litigations in the Family Court and the spouses filed joint petition for divorce. In Annexure-III joint petition entered into between the 1[st] petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent herein they have agreed to terminate the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.4261/2011 which is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. The other terms of settlement are elaborated in Annexure-III. The real disputants to the controversy have decided to amicably settle all the pending disputes between them and therefore no purpose would be served in continuing the impugned criminal proceedings, it is ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** stated. It is in the background of this facts and circumstances, that the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed. 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.S.V.Sikhilmon 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 Sri. B.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.S.V.Sikhilmon, 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 petitioners 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. ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** 5. Sri.S.V.Sikhilmon, 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] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners 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 petitioners as she has no grievance against them 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 ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** 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 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 petitioners/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)_ ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** _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 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........”_ ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** 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 noncompoundable 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_ ::8:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** _family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/ 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_ ::9:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** _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 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_ ::10:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** _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 be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of ::11:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5473 Of 2014** 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. 9. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure-I Charge Sheet which led to C.C.No.4261/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi in Crime No.661/2011 of Njarakkal Police Station and all further proceedings therefrom stands quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi as well as before the Station House Officer, Njarakkal, Ernakulam District. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-