Shereef v. Jamshi and The Sub Inspector of Police, Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode District, and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/29TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3027 of 2012** ## **----------------------------------** ## **C.C 198/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PERAMBRA.** **-----------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **SHEREEF, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, KOKKALLOOR P.O., BALUSSERY AMSOM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **---------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. JAMSHI, W/O.SHEREEF,** **MANIKKOTH HOUSE, P.O.KOKKALLOOR, BALUSSERY AMSOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001.** ## **3. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** ## **APPENDIX** **---------------** |**PETITIONER(S)'**|**ANNEXURES:**| |---|---| |**-------------------------------------------**|| |**ANNEXURE A1:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C. 198/2012 ON THE FILE OF**| ||**THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE**| ||**COURT-II, PERAMBRA.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2:**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT, AS PW1, IN C.C. 662/2009.**| |**ANNEXURE-A3:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL**| ||**MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA IN C.C 662/2009**| ||**DATED 30/03/2012.**| |**ANNEXURE-A4:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.3027 of 2012 .................................................. Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.198/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambara to quash the proceedings recording composition between the petitioner and the first respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambara, which was forwarded to the police for investigation by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure and a crime was registered as Crime No. 473/2009 alleging the offences under Sections 406 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure A1 final report was filed against the petitioner and his mother for the offence under Section 498 A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was taken on file as Crl.M.C.No.3027 of 2012 2 CC.No.662/2009. Since the present petitioner was working abroad, he could not participate in the trial and the case against the second accused namely the mother of the petitioner was tried and ended in acquittal as per Anenxure A3 judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra. 3. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. Since the 1[st] petitioner was absconding, the case against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.198/2012 and that is pending before the Judicial Fist Class Magistrate Court--II, Perambra. Since the matter has been settled and they are living together, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case. Since it is not a compoundable offence, that cannot be compounded before the trial court. So they have no other option but to approach this Court seeking the following relief s: i. To quash Annexure A1 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.198/2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Perambara as against the petitioner. 2. Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time. 4. The first respondent appeared through the counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties Crl.M.C.No.3027 of 2012 3 and they are living together now. 5. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that they are living as husband and wife now. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the first respondent are married as per the custom and lived together as husband and wife for some time. Thereafter some difference of opinion arose between them which resulted in several litigation including registering of crime on the basis of a private complaint under Section 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner and his mother. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation Annexure A1 final report was filed alleging the above offences against two accused persons including the present petitioner. On the basis of the final report, the case was taken on file as CC.No.662/09 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,Perambra. Since the present petitioner was absconding, the case against the second accused, who is the mother of the petitioner, was proceeded with and ended in acquittal evidenced by Annexure A3 judgment and the case against the petitioner was spilit up and refiled as C.C.No.198/2012. Now the petitioner appeared as directed by this Court and enlarged on Crl.M.C.No.3027 of 2012 4 bail, submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and the first respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, appeared through counsel and submitted Annexure A4 affidavit affirming settlement between the parties and expressing her willingness to quash the proceedings considering the settlement. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in family disputes, if the parties have settled their issues due to the intervention of well wishers and family members and does not want to proceed with the criminal prosecution initiated, then that must be honoured and the prosecution has to be quashed invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Since, it is a family dispute and the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of the mediators and family members and they are living together as husband and wife now, I feel that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to promote harmony that has been restored in the family of the petitioner and the first respondent to quash the proceedings 5 Crl.M.C.No.3027 of 2012 as no purpose will be served by allowing the parties to go for trial. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.198/2012 (Crime No.473/2009 of Balussery police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action. **Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.3027 of 2012 6