S. Maneesh, Mohana Ayyappan and Manoj v. Preetha, The Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station and State of Kerala

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/30TH PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 1333 of 2013 () --------------------------- CC.254/2010 of ADDL.C.J.M. (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 908/2009 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 AND 4:-: ------------------------------------------------- 1.S. MANEESH, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.LATE A. V SABARI, H.NO.39/4913, THOUDAYIL ROAD PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. - 2.MOHANA AYYAPPAN, AGED 61 YEARS W/O.LATE A. V SABARI, H.NO.39/4913, THOUDAYIL ROAD PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3. MANOJ, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.LATE A. V SABARI, H.NO.39/4913, THOUDAYIL ROAD PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.G.VIPIN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S) & STATE:-: -------------------------------------------------- 1.PREETHA, AGED 34 YEARS D/O.V.V.SIVASANKARAN, VENGOLA PUTHENPURAYIL PINDIMANA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 698. - 2.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31. R1 BY ADV. SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY R2,3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1333 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- ANNEXURE A1:A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.254/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A2:TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1333 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 21st day of March, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and first respondent are husband and wife. Second and third petitioners are respectively the mother and the brother 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 offences under sections 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code that resulted in the registration of crime No.908 of 2009 of Ernakulam South Town Police Station. After investigation, Annexure-A1 final report was laid in the said crime and cognizance was taken thereon and it is presently pending as C.C.No.254 of 2010 against the petitioners before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. It is seeking quashment of Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.254 of 2010 as against the petitioners that this Crl.M.C has been filed. **Crl.M.C.1333/13** 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The first respondent at whose instance AnnexureA1 final report was registered has now filed Annexure-A2 affidavit, in this case. As stated earlier, after completion of the investigation in the aforesaid crime, Annexure-A1 final report was laid and the case against the petitioners is now pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam as C.C.No.254 of 2010. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the first respondent and Annexure-A2 affidavit would reveal that the lis involved in this case has been compromised and settled between the first respondent and the petitioners. It is also stated therein that the first respondent did not want to prosecute the petitioners and also got no objection in quashing Annexure-A1 final report and also all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.254 of 2010. 3. True that an offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the decision **Crl.M.C.1333/13** 3 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 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 to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and such eventuality would certainly defeat **Crl.M.C.1333/13** 4 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.254 of 2010 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-A1 final report laid in crime No.908 of 2009 of Ernakulam South Town Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.254 of 2010 pending against the petitioners before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam are hereby quashed. ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1333/13** 5 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT** **Crl.M.C.1333/13** 6 **September, 2010**