Sajeevan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1945** **CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRA 612/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II & IST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,** ## **MAVELIKKARA** **CC 290/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , HARIPAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **SAJEEVAN AGED 33 YEARS S/O CHAKRAPANI, MADHAVAM, PATHIYOOR PANCHAYATH, 9TH WARD, PATHIYOOR WEST MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.SUNIL SRI.M.G.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **2 SMITHA BARGAVAN AGED 37 YEARS D/O.BARGAVAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL, PRINGALIPURAM, ENNAKKADU VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, PIN:689624.** **BY ADVS. ROHINI K.S. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 08.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012 2 ## **K.BABU, J** . -------------------------------------- ## Crl.R.P.No.2233 of 2012 --------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of August, 2023 ## **J U D G M E N T** The revision petitioner is accused No.1 in crime No.344 of 2007 of Kareelakulangara Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable Under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner and the other accused ill-treated additional respondent No.2 mentally and physically. 3. The trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. He challenged the judgment of the trial Court in Criminal Appeal No.612/2010 before the Sessions Court, Mavelikkara. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 4. The petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence in this revision petition. During the course of proceedings, petitioner filed Crl.M.A.2/2023 under Section 482 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012 3 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash all further proceedings consequent to the final report in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and 2[nd] respondent. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The 2[nd] respondent entered appearance through a counsel and filed an affidavit. Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit stating that the entire disputes between them had been settled in the mediation held at the Mediation Centre, Mavelikkara on 13.04.2023. She has no grievance against the revision petitioner. She also prayed for quashing the entire proceedings pursuant to the registration of the FIR and the judgment in Crl.A.No.612/2010. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, the State has no objection in quashing the proceedings. The revision petitioner and respondent No. 2 were husband and wife. The report of the mediation dated 13.04.2023 is made available to show that the parties arrived at a settlement and respondent No.2 has no grievance against the petitioner. The marital tie between them has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. The 2[nd] respondent CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012 4 remarried and is living with her husband. **In B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another [2003 (4) SCC 675** ], the Apex Court has considered the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial disputes by the courts. In **B.S.Joshi** the Apex Court observed thus; “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 8. Following the law declared by the Apex Court in **B.S.Joshi,** a Division bench of this Court in **Thankamani and Others v. State of Kerala [2006 (3) KLJ 366]** held that, in appropriate cases the Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to save the institution of marriage. In CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012 5 ## **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012 (10) SCC 303]** the Apex Court held thus:- “57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence my be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.” 9. **In Bitan Sengupta and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another [ 2018 (18) SCC 366]** , the Apex Court considered the acceptability of a settlement between the parties at the appellate stage (post conviction stage). The Apex Court in **Bitan Sengupta** (Supra) observed thus: “7. In the aforesaid circumstances and going by the spirit of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of B.S Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., we are of the opinion that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offences. It is, more so, when the settlement between the parties, who were husband and wife, was even acted upon as the parties took mutual divorce on that basis. CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012 6 8. We accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of conviction passed against the appellants.” ## 10. This Court in **Soban v. State of Kerala [ ILR** **2021 (2) Ker. 1212]** has considered the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings and conviction in a case where the parties have arrived at a settlement. In **Soban** (Supra) this Court observed thus; “10. It is settled that the plenary power possessed by the High Court u/S. 482 of Cr.PC are very wide, though to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It is equally settled that the said power could be exercised irrespective of the nature of the proceedings and concurrently with appellate or revisional jurisdiction Criminal proceedings commence from the lodging of FIR and would continue till the order of conviction, if passed, attains finality. When the order of conviction by the Trial Court is under challenge before the appellate or revisional Court, it cannot be said that the order of conviction did attain finality. The presumption of innocence would continue till the order of conviction attains finality despite the conviction by the trial Court. An appeal challenging the order of conviction has the effect of continuation of trial itself. Since the power u/S. 482 of Cr.PC is not controlled by S. 320, such power could be exercised at any stage of the criminal proceedings including at the appellate or revisional stage. The section does not contemplate or specify any particular stage when the powers u/S. 482 could be invoked. S.320 also does not contemplate any stage or specific mode by which Court can permit compounding of the offences. Subsections (5) and (6) of S. 320 permit composition of the offences even during appellate or revisional stage. Thus, there CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012 7 is no reason whatsoever to restrict exercise of powers u/S. 482 of Cr.PC. only to cases where an order of conviction was not passed. The inherent power u/S. 482 for quashing criminal proceedings being of a wide magnitude for being exercised with the object of securing the ends of justice, there cannot be limitation on such powers for being exercised only prior to conviction of an accused. Merely because the order of conviction was pending adjudication at the appellate or revisional stage, the same could not be a ground for refusing to exercise powers u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings especially when the parties to the dispute had arrived at a settlement. Hence, I hold that if requirements of S.482 of Cr.PC were satisfied in the sense that it was necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offence could be quashed notwithstanding the fact that the order of conviction was already passed against the accused provided offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).” 11. In the present case, the parties are living separately in their own peaceful settlement. Their dispute is purely personal in nature. 12. Having regard to the nature and the gravity of the offence alleged and the circumstances brought out, I am of the view that the Criminal M.A. No. 2/2022 deserves to be allowed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, for the ends of justice. CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012 8 13. In the result, Crl.M.A 2/2022 is allowed. The entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of Crime No. 344 of 2007 of Kareelakulangara Police Station stand quashed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant vide the impugned judgment are also set aside. The Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of as above. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** saap CRL.REV.PET NO. 2233 OF 2012 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.RP 2233/2012** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** |**Annexure-A1**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| |---|---| ||**23.07.2012 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.612 OF 2010**| ||**OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, 11**| ||**MAVELIKKARA.**| |**Annexure-A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JFC, 1,**| ||**HARIPAD. IN C.C.NO.290 OF2008.**| |**Annexure-A3**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN**| ||**O.P.NO.539 OF2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DATED 2.07.2012.**| ||**//TRUE COPY//PA TO JUDGE**|