Sunil v. State of Kerala and Anzi Haris

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/17TH ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No.5673 of 2014** ## **--------------------------------** **CP NO.79/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT.-I, KOLLAM CRIME NO.734/2013 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION,KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **SUNIL,AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.MURALEEDHARA, KUNNEL VEEDU,VADAKKEVILA, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM, PIN:691 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR.G** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. ANZI HARIS,AGED 18 YEARS,W/O.SUNIL, PANDAKASALA VEEDU,KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN:691 004.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW. R2 BY ADV. SMT.ASWATHY BABU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **pk** **Crl.MC.No.5673 of 2014** **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS ANNEXURES** **---------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.734/2013 OF THE KILOLLOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.10.2014. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL** **------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **pk** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== ## Crl.M.C.No. 5673 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 9[th] day of October, 2014 O R D E R The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.734/2013 of Kilikolloor Police Station and now pending as C.P.No.79/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. The 2[nd] respondent is the defacto complainant. The offence alleged against the petitioner, who is now aged 25 years, is that the accused had abducted the defacto complainant, who was then a minor, from the lawful custody of her parents and that they had resided various places. The final report is filed in this case and the case is now pending as C.P.No.79/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent and that the relatives of the girl were against this, and so they had interfered and the defacto complainant was constrained to lodge the complaint. Later, the 2[nd] respondent had attained the age of majority and the marriage between the petitioner, who is now aged 25 years, and the CrlMC 5673/14 - : 2 :- 2[nd] respondent, who is now aged 18 years, was solemnized at Ayathil Jama-Ath, Kollam, on 10.8.2014 and thereafter the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent are living together as husband and wife and that any further continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would only result in more damage to the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant in ways more than one. That the 2[nd] respondent has sworn to an affidavit as per Annexure 2 stating that she has no further complaint against the petitioner and that she was in love with the petitioner for several years and that as their parents were against this relationship and that as she was a minor, complaint had to be given as required by her parents and that immediately on her attaining majority, the marriage between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent has solemnized as stated above in the presence of the parents and relatives of both parties and thereafter, she is living together with the petitioner in a lawfully wedded relationship and that any continuance of the criminal proceedings would adversely affect her future life and that she has resolved to terminate all the legal proceedings against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the final report in crime No.734/2013 of Kilikolloor Police Station and the proceedings in CrlMC 5673/14 - : 3 :- C.P.No.79/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam and that this Court may be pleased to quash the final report in the aforementioned crime, which has led to C.P.No. 79/2013 pending before the aforementioned court etc. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the aforementioned Crl.M.C. has been filed praying to quash the final report in Crime No.734/2013 of Kilikolloor Police Station and all further proceedings in C.P.No. 79/2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Smt.Aswathi Babu has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri. Ajaya Kumar.G, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Aswathi Babu, learned counsel appearing for R2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and CrlMC 5673/14 - : 4 :- that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the case have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2[nd] respondent that the 2[nd] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as she has no grievance against him and that she will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that that court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the CrlMC 5673/14 - : 5 :- parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences arose out of certain complicated relationship of a love affair between a minor girl and a young boy and on attaining the age of majority, the defacto complainant girl has married the petitioner, with the consent and co-operation of their respective families and relatives and as stated by the young girl, in Annexure 2 it can be seen that any further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings would only adversely affect her future life and it is likely to cause more damage especially to her in domestic and social life and since the petitioner-accused has married the 2[nd] respondent and as both of them are living together and man and wife, individual interest of the spouses as well as social and public interest involved would be better subserved, if that marital relationship is encouraged to go without any interference arising out of the impugned criminal proceedings. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the CrlMC 5673/14 - : 6 :- 2[nd] respondent, it is clear to the court that the injured/ victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 ## thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]: “61. 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,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 CrlMC 5673/14 - : 7 :- 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........” Further, in the case Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 [see 2013 ## (1) KLD 817 (SC)], the Apex Court has held as follows:- “8. 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. 9. 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 wellwishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/ settlement. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said 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 - : 8 :- CrlMC 5673/14 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 noncompoundable in nature. 15. 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. 16. 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 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.” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes in the personal relationships CrlMC 5673/14 - : 9 :- between the parties and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. CrlMC 5673/14 - : 10 :- 9. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and accordingly, the final report in Crime No.734/2014 is quashed and all further proceedings in C.P.No. 79/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kollam are quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Kilikolloor Police Station. sdk+ Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge