Riyas K.C. and Others v. State of Kerala and Shameema T.P.

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. 1363 of 2013 () --------------------------CC.90/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 547/2011 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-5: --------------------------------- - 1.RIYAS K.C. AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, CHERIYATHEKKEKADAVU PADANNA KADAPPURAM, PADNE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ## 2.ABDUL RAZAK M. S/O.ISMAYIL, MADAMBILLATH(H), PADANNA KADAPPURAM PADNE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3.MARIYAMMA K.C., AGED 62 YEARS W/O.ABDUL RAZAK, MADAMBILLATH HOUSE, PADANNA KADAPPURAM PADNE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4.FOUSIYA K.C. AGED 44 YEARS D/O.ISMAYIL, MADAMBILLATH HOUSE, PADANNA KADAPPURAM PADNE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. K.C.HANEEFA, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, KAIPPATTIL (H), NR.PADANNA HIGH SCHOOL PADANNA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (CW1): -------------------------------------------------------------- 1.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. - 2.SHAMEEMA T.P., AGED 26 YEARS D/O.MUSTHAFA, KARUNTHALA, PADANNA VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671312. R2 BY ADV. SMT.O.K.SANTHA 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.M.C.1363/13 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1:THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 8.7.2011 IN CRIME NO.547/2011 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII:THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 23.12.2011 IN C.C.90/2012 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG. ANNEXURE AIII:A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.11.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1363 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 23[rd ] day of March, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. Matrimonial disharmony and conflicts between the first petitioner and the second respondent and joining in the said issue by petitioners 2 to 5 compelled the second respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner and petitioners 4 and 5 are respectively his aunt and his own brother. Crime No.547 of 2011 of Chandera Police Station was registered based on her complaint and Annexure-AI is the FIR registered based on the said complaint. After investigation, Annexure-AII charge sheet was laid in the aforesaid crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-AII charge sheet laid in the said crime which is now **Crl.M.C.1363/13** 2 pending as C.C.No.90 of 2012 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg on the ground that the entire issues that constrained the second respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioners that resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled amicably. It is further stated that after compromising the marital discord, they have now taken a decision to reside together, peacefully. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perusing Annexure-AIII agreement arrived at between the first petitioner and second respondent it leaves no doubt regarding the fact that the entire issues had been settled amicably and that the parties have decided to preserve the institution of marriage. I am of the view that the Courts have a duty to support a couple and to create a conducive situation when they wanted to protect and preserve the institution of marriage. In the decision in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana** reported in **[2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is only **Crl.M.C.1363/13** 3 proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C to enable the wife, who happened to file a petition complaining of commission of offence under section 498 A against the husband and then seeks for its quashment, to settle in her life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in such circumstances, declining to interfere by invoking the jurisdiction to prevent the wife from settling in her life, would certainly defeat the very purpose and purport of the introduction of Chapter XX-A under section 498A in the Indian Penal Code. It is evident from the position obtained in this case that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners based on Annexure-AII charge sheet has become absolutely unnecessary and its continuation against the petitioners would put the matrimonial tie between the first petitioner and the second respondent in astringent. It is, therefore, liable to be quashed, to secure ends of justice. 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 bounden duty **Crl.M.C.1363/13** 4 of this Court to terminate criminal proceedings that became absolutely unnecessary. In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-AII charge sheet laid in Crime No.547 of 2011 of Chandera Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto C.C.No.90 of 2012 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg are hereby quashed. ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1363/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.1363/13** 6