Suresh Kumar v. Rejitha Rajendran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/16TH PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 1152 of 2013 () --------------------------CC. 601/2012 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKARA CRIME NO.226/2012 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED -------------------------- 1.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.ACHUTHAN, MANIYARATH HOUSE P.O. KURINJALIYODE VATAKARA. 2.SREEDEVI, W/O ACHUTHAN MANIYARATH HOUSE P.O. KURINJALIYODE VATAKARA. BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): ------------------------------ 1.REJITHA RAJENDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.LATE RAJENDRAN KUNHAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM DESOM VATAKARA-673101 2.STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.NO.1152/2013 ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1:COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.226 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2:COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1152 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 7[th] day of March, 2013 ## **ORDER** The first petitioner and first respondent are husband and wife. Second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. It is the marital discord and the constant bickering that made the first respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.226 of 2012 of Vatakara Police Station was registered based on her complaint and Annexure-1 final report was laid in the said crime. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings based on Annexure-1 final report laid in the said crime which is now pending as C.C.No.601 of 2012 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vatakara on the ground that the entire issues that constrained the first respondent-wife to lodge complaint against the petitioners that resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled amicably. **Crl.M.C.1152/13** 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The first respondent has now filed Annexure-2 affidavit, in this case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the first respondent and Annexure-2 affidavit would reveal that the lis involved in this case has been compromised and settled between the first respondent and the petitioners. It is further evident that as part of the settlement arrived at between the parties, it has been decided to move a joint petition for dissolution of the marriage between the first respondent and the first petitioner under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. True that an offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. At the same time, it is to be noted that in the decision in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)),** taking into account the intent behind the introduction of Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code, the Hon'ble **Crl.M.C.1152/13** 3 Supreme Court held that in a case where wife on settling the issues that led to the lodging of the complaint wants to settle her life, there is no reason to decline exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, non-exercise of inherent power would defeat the purport behind introduction of Section 498A, it was further held. Going by the decision, the fact that Section 498A is noncompoundable and the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. prohibits compounding of any offence except otherwise than in terms of the provisions under that section cannot and will not limit or affect the powers of the High Court to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in appropriate cases. In such circumstances, when the wife had settled and compromised the lis that led to the registration of crime with her husband and his relatives and decided to settle in her life, non-exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the proceedings would undoubtedly prevent the wife from settling in her life and such eventuality would certainly defeat the very intent behind the introduction of section 498A in the IPC. The subsequent developments as mentioned above have made continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.601 of 2012 absolutely **Crl.M.C.1152/13** 4 unnecessary. In such circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** reported in **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC),** it is the duty of this Court to terminate such unnecessary proceedings. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-1 final report laid in crime No.226 of 2012 of Vatakara Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.601 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vatakara are hereby quashed. **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1152/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **Crl.M.C.1152/13** 6