Shinoj K.R. and others v. Neema Thomachan 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. 6579 of 2013** **---------------------------------CMP NO.551/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR. CRIME NO.268/2013 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION.** **------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.268/2013:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. SHINOJ K.R., AGED 35 YEARS,** - **S/O.K.R.RAPPAI, RESIDING AT KAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. OLLUKKARA, TRICHUR 680 655.** ## **2. K.R.RAPPAI, AGED 73 YEARS,** - **S/O.RAPPAI, RESIDING AT KAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. OLLUKKARA, TRICHUR 680 655.** **3. LILA RAPPAI, AGED 62 YEARS,** - **W/O.K.R.RAPPAI, RESIDING AT KAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. OLLUKKARA, TRICHUR 680 655.** ## **4. ARUN JOY, AGED 38 YEARS,** - **S/O.V.P.JOY, RESIDING AT G 206, ARMY COMPLEX, SECTOR 9, NERUL, NEW MUMBAI, PIN: 400 706.** **5. SHIJA ARUN, AGED 33 YEARS,** - **W/O.ARUN JOY, RESIDING AT G 206, ARMY COMPLEX, SECTOR 9, NERUL, NEW MUMBAI, PIN: 400 706.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SMT.VINEETHA B. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR SMT.M.A.JINSA MOL** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. NEEMA THOMACHAN, AGED 28 YEARS, PERINJERY HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, TRICHUR.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM** **R2 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. ## **Crl.MC.No. 6579 of 2013** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **---------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **-------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TRICHUR, NUMBERED AS CMP 551/2013. ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME 268/2013 ON THE FILES OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED IN OP 1574/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, TRICHUR.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------ANNEXURE 1: AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M. C. No.6579 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.268/2013 of Mannuthy Police Station, to quash the proceedings on the basis of the composition entered into between them and the defacto-complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the first petitioner married the defacto-complainant/first respondent and they lived together as husband and wife for sometime and thereafter love lost between them and they started residing separately. On account of the same, several litigations arose between them in the family court. Further on the basis of Annexxure-A1, a private complaint field by the defacto-complainant, Mannuthy Police registered Annexure-A2 first information report as Crime No.268/2013 2 Crl. M. C. No.6579 of 2013 against the petitioners alleging offences under Section 312, 323, 406, 420, 498(A), and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation is still in progress. In the meantime, the disputes between the first petitioner and the first respondent were settled amicably due to the intervention of mediators, family members and relatives and Annexure-A3 settlement was arrived at, which was filed in O.P.1574/2012 pending before the Family Court, Thrissur. It was on that basis, they filed this application to quash the proceedings recording the settlement, invoking the power under Section 482 of the 'Code', seeking the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit and for other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crime No.268/2013 pending on the file of the Mannuthy Police Station and C.M.P.No.551/2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thrissur.” 3. The first respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and all the disputes pending before the family court were amicably settled and they have decided to settle this case as well and withdraw the prosecution, on Crl. M. C. No.6579 of 2013 3 the basis of the intervention of the family members, friends and well-wishers. The defacto-complainant has no complaint against the petitioners now. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in the preliminary stage and in fact on the basis of the statement, they have decided to reside separately. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on the basis of the settlement, the proceedings may be quashed. 5. It is an admitted fact that the first respondent was married by the first petitioner and they lived together as husband and wife for some time and thereafter due to some mis-understanding they started living separately. Cases have been filed before the family court and also the first respondent filed Annexure-A1 private complaint before the Judicial Fist Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 498(A), 312, 323, 406, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was forwarded to the police for Crl. M. C. No.6579 of 2013 4 investigation by the learned magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the 'Code' and on that basis Annexure-A2 Crime was registered. In the meantime, due to the intervention of the family members and well-wishers the disputes between the parties have been settled and they filed Annexure-A3 compromise before the Family court and all the cases pending before the family court were withdrawn, on the basis of the compromise. After filing of final report in the case, it is also taken on file as C.C.No.752/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur and pending in that court. The petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the first respondent. The matter has been settled between the parties amicably and the first respondent and the first petitioner have decided to reside separately. It is true that some of the offences alleged are grave in nature but when the affected party herself has come before this court and decided to settle the claim, exonerating the accused persons taking note the harmony to be brought in the family life, I feel that, that need not be taken so much Crl. M. C. No.6579 of 2013 5 ## concern for considering the proceedings in this case. ## 6. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** held that: “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, 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 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Considering the fact that it is a family dispute and the matter has been settled between the parties, due to the intervention of the family members and well-wishers and they have decided to separate and lead 6 Crl. M. C. No.6579 of 2013 their life happily with future arrangements to be made in this regard and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, I feel that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 can be invoked to quash the proceedings to bring harmony among the family members. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.752/2013 (Crime No.268/2013 of Mannuthy Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistate Court-III, Thrissur, as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for further action. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss