Shameena C.H. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Malappuram Police Station & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2013/21ST ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2856 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------------------** ## **C.C.NO.86/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM CRIME NO. 618/2011 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION** ## **PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------** **SHAMEENA.C.H., AGED 24, D/O.MOHAMMED ALI, CHERUTHODI HOUSE, D.P.O.ROAD, MALAPPURAM AMSOM, KEEZHMURI DESOM, ERNAD TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. SHANAVAS, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.AHAMED HAJI, KALAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, KOPPAM AMAYOOR-676123.** ## **3. AHAMMED HAJI OF DO... DO..** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **MJL** **Crl.MC.No. 2856 of 2013 () ------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** ## **----------------------------------------** |**ANNEXURE-A:**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME**| |---|---| ||**NO.618/2011 DATED 19-11-2011 MALAPPURAM POLICE**| ||**STATION**| |**ANNEUXRE-B:**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.618/2011**| ||**DATED 20-12-2011**| |**ANNEXURE-C:**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTARISED AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY**| ||**PETITIONER ON 15-4-2013**| |**ANNEXURE-D:**|**TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**DATED 31-5-2013.**| ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P A TO JUDGE** **MJL** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2856 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 2013** ## **ORDER** The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.618 of 2011 of Malappuram Police Station, preferred the above petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.618 of 2011 of Malappuram Police Station, Annexure-B charge sheet dated 20/12/2011 and all further proceedings pending in C.C.No.86 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram against the accused, who are respondents 2 and 3 in the above M.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner was given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rupees One lakh at the time of their marriage. But respondents 2 and 3 demanding more dowry taunted and harassed the petitioner and as the petitioner/de facto complainant was not amenable for the demand of the respondents/accused, she was abused Crl.M.C.No.2856 of 2013 :-2-: and subjected to harassment and accordingly she was hospitalised and thus, on the basis of the statement given by the petitioner, Crime No.618 of 2011 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) of IPC. On conducting investigation, the first respondent preferred final report i.e., Annexure-B. On the basis of the same, the learned Magistrate of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram took cognizance and instituted C.C.No.86 of 2012. Annexure-A is the F.I.R. and Annexure-B is the Final Report. Now, the case of the petitioner is that, during the pendency of the above matter the petitioner as well as the second respondent decided to part with and marriage was dissolved by pronouncing Talak and the second respondent accordingly discharged his liabilities under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act and as such the petitioner does not want to proceed against respondents 2 and 3. Besides filing the above petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has also filed Annexure-D affidavit dated 31/05/2013. Crl.M.C.No.2856 of 2013 :-3-: 4. 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-D 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. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) of IPC. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are 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 petitioner/de facto complainant, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the respondents 2 & 3/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian** Crl.M.C.No.2856 of 2013 :-4-: **Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] and **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others** v. **Babita Raghuvanshi and another** [2013 (1) KLD 817 (SC)]. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.. It is further held as follows:- “......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the Crl.M.C.No.2856 of 2013 :-5-: compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........” Further, in **Jitendra Raghuvanshi's case,** the Apex Court 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 Crl.M.C.No.2856 of 2013 :-6-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2856 of 2013 :-7-: 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 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.” Considering the particular facts and circumstances in this case, it can be seen further that the criminal proceedings are initiated consequent to the matrimonial dispute arose among the parties and both the disputes are now amicably settled between the parties. 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 decisions 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 Crl.M.C.No.2856 of 2013 :-8-: prosecution, resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result 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-A FIR in Crime No.618 of 2011 of Malappuram Police Station, Annexure-B charge sheet dated 20/12/2011 and all further proceedings pending in C.C.No.86 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram against the accused, who are respondents 2 and 3 in the above Crl.M.C. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge