T.T. Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 2014/26TH VAISAKHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2542 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO.303/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO. 539/2013 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION ,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **---------------------------------------** **T.T. IBRAHIM, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, THEKKETHUMBATHU (H), KARUVALKALLU, PALLIKKAL AMSOM.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.539/2013 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION) (CC.NO.303/2013 CJM, MANJERI).** **2. SALEENA, D/O.ALAVI, UCHAKAVIL HOUSE, KODIYATHUR AMSOM, PANNIKODE P.O., KOZHIKKODE -673 061.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 2542 of 2014 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------ANNEX-I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.539/2013 OF KARIPPUR POLICE STATION. ANNEX-II: THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.2542 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 16[th] day of May, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.303/2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner married the second respondent/defacto complainant on 30.5.1998 and thereafter they were residing together as husband and wife. There was some difference of opinion arose between the parties and the second respondent filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, which the learned Magistrate forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. On that basis, Karippur police had registered a case as crime No.539/2013 under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and after investigation, Annexure -I Final 2 Report was filed and the learned Magistrate had taken the case on file as C.C.No.303/2013 and it is pending before that court. Now the matter has been settled between the parties amicably due to intervention of mediators and family members. The defacto complainant also filed an affidavit to that effect. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case in view of the settlement. Since the offence is non compoundable one, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: “ In the above circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in C.CNo.303/2013 (arising out of Crime No.539/2013 of Karippur Police Station) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, as it is an abuse of process of Court”. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the 1[st] respondent and the second respondent appeared through counsel. 4. The counsel for the second respondent submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators and the defacto complainant does not 3 want to prosecute the case in view of the settlement. She had filed an affidavit to that effect as well. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement even if the case is allowed to prosecute, no purpose will be served. So he prayed for allowing the application. 6. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor. 7. I have considered the contentions of both the parties. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner married the second respondent in the year 1998 and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife and after some time, difference of opinion arose between them and they separated and Crime No.539/2013 was registered by the Karippur police station on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri which was forwarded for investigation to the police by the learned Magistrate and after investigation, Annexure-I final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.303/2013 and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The second respondent filed Annexure-II affidavit stating that the matter 4 has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators and they had decided to separate and she does not want to prosecute the petitioner and proceed with the criminal case in view of the settlement. 9. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “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 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 5 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.” 10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute and the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators and family members and they have decided to separate and lead a peaceful life in view of the settlement and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well as the defacto complainant or her witnesses are not likely to support the prosecution and conviction in such case is remote and the future life of the spouses should not be affected on account of the pendency of this case, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code 6 has to be invoked to quash the proceedings. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.303/13(Crime No.539/13 of Karippur police station) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri 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