Shameem, Abdul Khader and Ramla v. Abeera and Station House Officer, Bekal Police Station

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3763 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 450/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **..........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** ## **1. SHAMEEM, AGED 29 YEARS,** - **S/O. K.K. ABDUL KHADER.** ## **2. ABDUL KHADER. K.K.,** **AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. UMBAYI.** ## **3. RAMLA, AGED 50 YEARS,** **W/O. ABDUL KHADER, (ALL ARE RESIDING AT K.K. HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, KOTIKULAM, P.O. BEKAL, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH, SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------** ## **1. ABEERA, AGED 22 YEARS,** **D/O. HAMZA AND W/O. SHAMEEM, RESIDING AT DARALSALAM, PALAKUNNU, UDUMA VILLAGE, P.O. BEKAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,** **BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.TEKCHAND. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3763 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-II HOSDURG BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20-05-2013. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE KASARAGOD GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS 2 & 3 DATED 25-06-2013. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL. //TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3763 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2013** ## **ORDER** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.450 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in Crime No.450 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. As per the prosecution allegation the first petitioner herein married the first respondent, who is the de facto complainant on 10/01/2010 in accordance with the custom and practice prevailing in Muslim Community and while the de facto complainant was residing in her matrimonial home, the accused demanding more dowry she was subjected to harassment both physically and mentally and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Now the case of the petitioners is that, during the Crl.M.C.No.3763 of 2013 :-2-: pendency of the above case, in the light of Annexure-A2 order, through the mediation held in Sessions Court at Kasaragod, the entire dispute is settled and the spouses are separated. Annexure-A3 affidavit is sworn into by the first respondent, who is the de facto complainant to the above effect. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1[st] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them. Crl.M.C.No.3763 of 2013 :-3-: 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition including Annexure-A3 affidavit. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offence involved in the above case is only under Section 498A of I.P.C. which is more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offence is involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 1[st] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Honourable Apex Court, in the decision reported in **Jitendra** Crl.M.C.No.3763 of 2013 :-4-: ## **Raghuvanshi and Others** v. **Babita Raghuvanshi and** ## **another** [2013 (1) KLD 817(SC)], has held as follows:- “7. 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 non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. 8. 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3763 of 2013 :-5-: 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.” “12. 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 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. 13. 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 Crl.M.C.No.3763 of 2013 :-6-: 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 of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.” In the present case, the only offence involved is under Section 498A of I.P.C. The criminal proceedings for the said offence originated from the matrimonial issues, which are now settled. Consequently, the parties want a quietus to the criminal case as well. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision will be squarely applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result Crl.M.C.No.3763 of 2013 :-7-: would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Crl.M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A1 complaint in Crime No.450 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj