Subith, Surjith and Sibitha v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date: 2014-09-03
Court Decision / Holding: This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The court quashed the proceedings in CC No.2769/2013 (Crime No.1755/2013, Vatanappally P.S., Thrissur Dist.) and disposed of the matter in favor of the settlement and harmony between the parties.
Final Disposition: Quashed; proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.2769/2013 arising from Crime No.1755/2013 are quashed under Section 482 CrPC to reflect settlement and restore family harmony.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Subith
Surjith
Sibitha

Respondents

State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor
Dharman
Chithira

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Rajit

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. Sareena P. George
• Sri. V. V. Joy

Case Synopsis & Summary

Subith, Surjith and Sibitha, accused in Crime No. 1755/2013 of Vatanappally Police Station, Thrissur, challenged the order in CC 2769/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad, seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement achieved between the parties. The petition arises from a matrimonial dispute in which the first petitioner married the third respondent, daughter of the second respondent, and the couple faced ill-treatment and alleged misappropriation of ornaments. After investigation, a final report was filed and the matter was taken on file as CC 2769/2013. The parties reportedly settled with mediation and the defacto complainant and the third respondent (his wife) indicated they do not want to prosecute, arguing there is no possibility of conviction and that settlement should be honored to maintain family harmony. The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing, noting non-compoundable elements under IPC, and contending it is not a fit case for 482 CrPC. The High Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to affirm that matrimonial disputes settled via mediation may be quashed under 482 CrPC to preserve harmony where there is no likelihood of conviction, and accordingly quashed the proceedings to promote settlement and family harmony.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab doctrine: in matrimonial disputes arising from crime where settlement via mediators occurs, a court may quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC to promote harmony; respect for settlement to restore family harmony

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that an amicable settlement had been reached between the families through mediators and well-wishers, and that there was no realistic prospect of conviction given the settlement and the lack of willingness of the defacto complainant and his daughter to support the prosecution. They argued that the dispute is matrimonial in nature and the aim should be to preserve family harmony. Since some offences are non-compoundable, the court should nonetheless exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent further familial discord.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that, although a settlement has occurred, the case involves non-compoundable offences and the court should not lightly quash the proceedings. They suggested that quashing would bypass potential criminal accountability and undermine public interest; hence, even with settlement, the matter might require continuation in some form absent strong justification.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to justify quashing proceedings under 482 CrPC in matrimonial disputes where parties settle through mediation and there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction, to promote harmony.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/12TH BHADRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 5083 of 2014 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2769/2013 of J.M.F.C.,CHAVAKKAD CRIME NO. 1755/2013 OF VATANAPPALLY POLICE STATION , TRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------- 1. SUBITH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KUITTAPPAN, CHITTAMPURATH HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR DESOM, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SURJITH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, CHITTAMPURATH HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR DESOM, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SIBHITHA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.KUTTAPPAN, CHITTAMPURATH HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR DESOM, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- -- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. DHARMAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, THATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERKKARA DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. CHITHIRA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.DHARMAN, THATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERKKARA DESOM NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R2&R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.JOY R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA P.GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5083 of 2014 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ----------------------- ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1755/2013 OF THE VATANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ANNEXURE-B - TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE VATANAPPALLY POLICE BEFORE THE LEARNED JFCM, CHAVAKKAD. ANNEXURE-C - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-D - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES;NIL -------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE cl ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.5083 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 3[rd] day of September, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the accused in C.C.No.2769/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners have been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.1755/2013 of Vatanappally police station of Thrissur district, which was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the second respondent as defacto complainant before the District Police Chief, Thrissur which was forwarded to the Vatanappally police station through proper channel and on that basis, the above crime was registered against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 406 and 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution was that the first petitioner married the third respondent, who is the daughter of the second respondent and after the marriage she was ill treated by the accused persons and the ornaments given at the time of the marriage were misappropriated and thereby all of them have committed the above said offences. After investigation, Annexure- Crl.M.C.No.5083 of 2014 2 B final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.2769/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. Now the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators. On account of the settlement, neither the defacto complainant nor his daughter want to prosecute the petitioners and there is no possibility of conviction in such cases as well. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, the same cannot be compounded before the court below. So, the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs: 1. Quash Annexure-A & B and the entire proceedings pending as C.C.No.2769/2013 of JFCM, Chavakkad arising from Crime No.1755/2013 of the Vatanappally Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators and they do not want to prosecute the petitioners on account of the settlement and they have filed Annexures-C and D affidavits stating these facts. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and he prayed for allowing the application. 3 Crl.M.C.No.5083 of 2014 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners, but opposed the petition on the ground that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. It is an admitted fact that the third respondent, who is the daughter of the second respondent, was married by the first petitioner and after the marriage they were living together for sometime and thereafter due to some misunderstanding between them, they separated and on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent to the District Police Chief which was forwarded to the SHO, Vatanapally for necessary action and on receipt of the same, Annexure-A First Information Report was registered in Crime No.1755/2013 of Vatanappally police station against the petitioners alleging commission of the offences under Sections 406 and 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. After investigation, Annexure-B final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.2769/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. Now the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators and well wishers of both the parties. On account of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction as neither the defacto complainant nor his witnesses including the third 4 Crl.M.C.No.5083 of 2014 respondent, the wife of the first petitioner, will support the case of the prosecution. Further, since it is a family dispute and the matter has been settled between the parties, the court must always honour such settlement to promote harmony that has been restored in the families. 9. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] it has been held that in the case of matrimonial dispute which resulted in registration of the crime and filing of the final report and if family dispute has been settled between the parties on account of intervention of well wishers and mediators of both the family members, then the court must always honour such settlement and promote harmony that has been restored on account of the settlement between the two families and though non compoundable offences are incorporated, the court can invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in such cases. 10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute which resulted in registration of the crime and the matter has been settled on account of the intervention of well wishers of both the parties and there is no possibility of conviction, this Court feels that this is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote settlement which resulted in harmony between the Crl.M.C.No.5083 of 2014 5 members of the family and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. So, this petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.2769/2013 (Crime No.1755/2013 of Vatanappally police station of Thrissur District) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad is hereby quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. ## Sd/- **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.5083 of 2014 6