SHYLAJA @ GIRIJA v. STATE OF KERALA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE, 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1930 Crl.MC.No. 504 of 2005 --------------------------- (CC.361/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM O.P.NO.1919 OF 2003 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 4: --------------------------------------- 1. SHYLAJA @ GIRIJA, D/O.VIJAYAMMA, DEEPTHI COTTAGE, 60 A, M.G.NAGAR, PEROORKADE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (2ND ACCUSED). 2. VIJAYAMMA, D/O.KALYANI, DO.DO. (3RD ACCUSED). 3. DEEPTHI @ SHIBU, D/O.SHYLAJA, DO.DO. (4TH ACCUSED). BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER ## RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AJITHA, D/O.SUJATHA, SAJU NIVAS, HOUSE NO.33, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 504 of 2005 - C --------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 2008** ## **O R D E R** The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.361 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. In this petition, they seek an order to quash Annexure-B charge sheet and all proceedings pending thereon in C.C.No.361 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. 2. The second respondent preferred a private complaint before the court below which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. On receiving the complaint in the Kilikolloor Police Station, they registered a crime (No.479 of 2003) and Annexure-A is the First Information Report in that crime. After the investigation, a final report was filed on 22.12.2003 and Annexure B is the final report. There, the prosecution case is that the first accused married the second respondent on 15.12.2002 as per the custom and they were residing as husband and wife. Thereafter, some ## **CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005** ## **:-2-:** difference of opinion occurred among them and it is further alleged that the first accused assaulted her and the third accused compelled her to dispose of her property and thereby, all the accused mentally and physically harassed her and thereby they committed the offences punishable under Sections 324, 294(b) and 498 (A) read with Section 34 I.P.C. It is the above case now sought to be quashed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Counsel submits that the first accused had filed O.P.No.1919 of 2003 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram for restitution of conjugal rights. In that petition, a compromise petition was filed which is marked as Annexure-C. Since the matter has been compromised, the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram disposed of the petition as Annexure-D order. In Annexure-D order, it is stated that the parties are living together and sworn statements are recorded and the Original Petition is dismissed. ## **CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005** ## **:-3-:** 5. I have perused the materials available on record. Going by Annexure-C compromise petition filed before the Family Court in O.P.No.1919 of 2003, it can be seen that the parties had decided to settle the criminal case based upon the crime registered in the Kilikolloor Police Station for the offence under Section 498A of Cr.P.C. and they also decided to withdraw the above case. It is also discernible from Annexure-C that respondents in that petition agreed to withdraw unconditionally O.S.No.39 of 2004 which was filed in the Family Court, Kollam against the petitioner and his sisters. It is also revealed that the parties are agreeable to the conditions contained in the compromise petition. On the basis of the above materials, the petitioners herein pray that the proceedings pending against them in the court below may be quashed. 6. In the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute including the family dispute and other criminal case, I am of the view that it is the duty of this Court to give effect and encourage the ## **CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005** ## **:-4-:** settlement of matrimonial disputes. The Apex Court, in the decision reported in **B.S.Joshi** v. **State of Haryana** (AIR 2003 SC 1386), held that Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court to quash the proceedings under Section 482. In the very same judgment, the Apex Court had further held that refusal to exercise inherent powers by High Court is not proper as it would prevent women from settling earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. A Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in **Thankamma** v. **State of Kerala** (2006(3) KLT 846) had held that the courts must see that the power of the court under Section 482 is not misused. In the above decision, this Court had further held that when the parties are seeking to compound the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C., the approach of the court would be to save the institution of marriage since the sanctity of marriage is a corner stone of civilization and to bring peace and happiness in the society. In the present case, as revealed by the records, the matter has been settled ## **CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005** ## **:-5-:** between the parties and they have put an end to all disputes including the disputes which were pending before the Family Court and also in the criminal court. If that be so, there is no meaning in directing the petitioners to undergo the ordeal of trial. In the light of the settlement of the dispute between the parties, it is crystal clear that there is no scope for a meaningful prosecution. On the other hand, if the proceedings are allowed to continue, that will amount to abuse of process of the court. 7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and accordingly, Annexure-B charge and C.C.No.361 of 2004 instituted thereon and all proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam are quashed. ## **V.K.Mohanan, Judge** MBS/ ## **CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005** ## **:-6-:** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- ## **CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005** **:-7-:** J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2008 ## **CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005** **:-8-:**