Satheesh Kumar and Others v. Sasikala and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2020-11-24
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned Anx-III Final report/Charge sheet in Crime No.2409/2016 leading to C.C. No.58/2018 is quashed and set aside, and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Certified copies of this order shall be furnished to the Investigating Officer and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom, for necessary action.
Final Disposition: The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of with quashing of the final report/charges and all proceedings; order to be communicated to IO and JFCM Vaikom for compliance.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Satheesh Kumar
Indirakutty Amma
Santhosh Kumar
Radhamani

Respondents

Sasikala
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Arjun Raghavan
• Adithya Rajeev
• T.R. Harikumar

Counsels for Respondents

• I.V. Pramod
• Santosh Peter (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case filed as Crl.M.C. No. 2567 of 2018, arising from a private complaint that led to an FIR (Crime No. 2409/2016) at Vaikom Police Station and, ultimately, the Calendar Case C.C No.58/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. The petitioners—Satheesh Kumar (husband) and his mother Indirakutty Amma, and his brother Santhosh Kumar with his wife Radhamani—are accused in a matter involving offences under IPC sections 447 (crimum trespass), 498A (cruelty by husband or relative) and 506 read with 34 IPC. The State and the defacto complainant Sasikala oppose or participate in the matter as respondents. The core submission is that the marriage has been dissolved by Family Court, the entire disputes have been amicably settled, and the complainant has filed an affidavit stating no subsisting grievances and no objection to quashing the proceedings. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents that permit quashing even in non-compoundable offences when parties settle, provided continuance would serve no purpose. On perusal of records, the family court decree, and the settlement affidavit, the court found a genuine settlement and observed that continuing prosecution would waste judicial time. Consequently, the impugned final report/charge sheet and proceedings are quashed and set aside. The order directs the production of certified copies before the IO and the JFCM Vaikom. The petition is disposed accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 447 IPCSection 498A IPCSection 506 read with Section 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that their marital relation has effectively ended by a Family Court decree and that a genuine settlement with the complainant has been achieved; the first respondent has filed an affidavit dated 02-11-2020 stating no subsisting grievances and no objection to quashing; continuing prosecution would be futile and a misuse of court time, and the decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh support quashing under 482 Cr.P.C. in such amicable settlements.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, represented by the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the defacto complainant, acknowledged the settlement and alleged no continuing grievance; they supported quashment in light of the affidavit and the sincere settlement, aligning with Supreme Court guidance that ends of justice are served by quashing where disputes are settled and prosecution would not serve a purpose.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	The court relied on Gian Singh to justify quashing when parties have settled disputes and prosecution serves no purpose.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Paragraph 29 in Narinder Singh was cited to support settlement-based quashing in appropriate circumstances.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **Crl.MC.No.2567 OF 2018** **CC 58/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VAIKOM CRIME NO.2409/2016 OF Vaikom Police Station , Kottayam** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **1 SATHEESH KUMAR AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN NAIR, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, EZHUMANTHURUTHU P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2 INDIRAKUTTY AMMA AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. CHELLAPPAN NAIR, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, EZHUMANTHURUTHU P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **3 SANTHOSH KUMAR** **AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN NAIR, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, EZHUMANTHURUTHU P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **4 RADHAMANI** **AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, EZHUMANTHURUTHU P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR** Crl.M.C No. 2567 of 2018 2 ## **- RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** |**1**|**SASIKALA**| |---|---| ||**AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR,**| ||**PUSHPAMANGALATH HOUSE, CHEMMANATHUKARA P.O.,**| ||**T.V.PURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,**| ||**KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 606.**| |**2**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C No. 2567 of 2018 3 ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------Criminal M.C. No. 2567 of 2018 -----------------------------------Dated this the 24[th ] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** The prayer in the afore captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under 482 of Cr.PC is as follows: _“..........to quash Anx.III Final report and all further proceedings in C.C No.58 of 2018 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom.”_ 2. Heard Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (accused), Sri.Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R2 State of Kerala and Sri.I.V. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for R1 (lady defacto complainant) 3. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 among the four accused in the instant Anx.II FIR in crime No.2409/2016 of Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam District for offences punishable under Secs.447, 498A, 506 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, pursuant to Anx.I private criminal complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent-lady defacto complainant, in which the learned Magistrate had directed the police to register a crime and conduct investigation in the allegations thereon. The 1[st] petitioner is 4 Crl.M.C No. 2567 of 2018 the husband of the 1[st] respondent-lady defacto complainant and 2[nd] to 4[th] petitioners herein (A2-A4) are the mother, elder brother and elder brother's wife respectively of the 1[st] petitioner (A1). 4. The Police after investigation has filed the impugned Anx-III Final report/Charge sheet in the said crime No.2409/2016 of Vaikom police station, which has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case C.C No.58/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom for the abovesaid offences as against the petitioners/accused. 5. The brief of the prosecution case is that, the 1[st] petitioner herein (A1) has married the first respondent and that when the abovesaid spouses were living in their marital home, the petitioners have treated her with cruelty and harassment and that later this spouses were separated and thereafter the 1[st] petitioner had trespassed into her parental property and harassed her. 6. Now it is submitted by Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (accused) and Sri.I.V.Pramod, learned counsel appearing for R1, that marital relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and R1 has been dissolved by the decree and judgment of 5 Crl.M.C No. 2567 of 2018 the Family Court on the basis of nature of consent of the parties. Further that the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent has now been resolved and that the 1[st] respondent has now filed Anx.V affidavit dated 02-11-2020 stating that, she has no subsisting grievances against the petitioners and that the entire issues between them has been amicably settled and that she does not wish to pursue the impugned criminal proceedings any longer and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, which has led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C No.58/2018, on the file of JFCM, Vaikom as against the petitioners/accused, etc. 7. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the 6 Crl.M.C No. 2567 of 2018 precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 8. Accordingly it is ordered that the impugned Anx-III Final report/Charge sheet filed in crime No.2409/2016 of Vaikom police station, Kottayam, which has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C No.58/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, Kottayam District as against the petitioners/accused and all proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioners/accused will stand quashed and set aside. 9. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order Crl.M.C No. 2567 of 2018 7 before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, Kottayam District, who is dealing with C.C No.2409/2016 for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** KAS Crl.M.C No. 2567 of 2018 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.11.2016 IN CMP NO. 12464/2016 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, VAIKOM.** **ANNEXURE II** **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 02.12.2016 IN CRIME NO. 2409/2016 OF THE VAIKOM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE III** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 30.05.2017 IN CRIME NO.2409/2016 OF THE VAIKOM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE IV** **A TRUE COPY OF THE H.M.A.O.P.NO. 1011 OF 2016 DATED 04.10.2016 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR.** **ANNEXURE V** **A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02-11-2020.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL**