Udayakumar v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2014/8TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1623 of 2013** ## **------------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 50/2013 OF PETTAH POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM -----------------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------** **UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.DHARANEENDRAN, T C 76/2203, PATTAHIL VEEDU, CHATHANPARA, VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** **THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SHEELA, AGED 40 YEARS,** **D/O.LEELA, TC 76/2203, PATTATHIL VEEDU, CHATHANPARA, VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121** ## **3. RAJAN, AGED 20 YEARS,** **S/O.UDAYAKUAMR, TC 76/2203, PATTATHIL VEEDU, CHATHANPARA, VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA WARD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 121(DECATO COMPLAINANT)** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.MAYA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.VISWAMBARAN.V.S** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 1623 of 2013** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.50/13 OF PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **ANNEXURE B : NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF COMPROMISE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE C : NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF COMPROMISE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1623 of 2013 .................................................. Dated this the 29[th] day of May, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.50/2013 of Pettah police station, Thiruvananthapuram district to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.50/2013 of Pettah police station, Thiruvananthapuram distrcit, which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant alleging commission of offences under Section 307 of the Indian penal Code on the allegation that petitioner who is the father of the defacto complainant had attempted to murder wife of the petitioner shown as second respondent herein by inflicting injuries on her. Now due to intervention of family members and well wishers, the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent has been resolved and now they are living together under the same roof happily. In view of the Crl.M.C.No.1623 of 2013 2 settlement, no purpose will be served by allowing the investigation to continue as even if ultimately final report is filed, no conviction will be possible and it will be only a wastage of judicial time to allow the case to continue. Since it is in the crime stage and offence alleged is non compoundable in nature, neither the police nor the court before which the case is ultimately going to be tried will drop the proceedings or accept the compounding. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: In the circumstances above, it is humbly prayed that the compromise may kindly be accepted and the proceedings under Annexure A pending as Cr.50/13 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the offence under Sec.307 I.P.C may be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled and it is a family dispute which resulted in quarrel and filing of the crime and now they are living together happily under the same roof and Crl.M.C.No.1623 of 2013 3 respondents 2 and 3 do not want to prosecute the petitioner who is the husband of the second respondent and the father of the third respondent. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by keeping the case on file. 4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is incorporated and it is in the crime stage. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and father of the third respondent. It is also an admitted fact that on account of some incident had happened between the petitioner and the second respondent in which the second respondent sustained injuries and she was taken to hospital by the third respondent and on the basis of the statement given by the third respondent Anenxure-A First Information Report was registered as Crime No.50/2013 of Pettah police station against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was arrested and after detention in jail for sometime, he was released on bail. Now 4 Crl.M.C.No.1623 of 2013 due to the intervention of mediators and family members, the dispute between respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner has been settled and they are now residing together under the same roof happily. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of the defacto complainant or the second respondent or the witnesses co-operate with the investigation so as to enable the investigating officer to file final report in the matter and even if final report is filed on the basis of the evidence collected, in view of the settlement, they will not support the case of the prosecution and conviction in such case is remote. Further, it cannot be said to be a case of public interest. In fact the quarrel on account of the matrimonial dispute resulted in filing of the case which has now been settled and they are living happily under the same roof on account of the settlement. 7. 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 predominatingly 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 5 Crl.M.C.No.1623 of 2013 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 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.” 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact it is a dispute between the husband and wife and which has been settled in the mediation held at Crl.M.C.No.1623 of 2013 6 the instance of the family members and well wishers of both the parties and on account of the settlement they are living together happily under the same roof and possibility of conviction even if it is allowed to continue, the investigation and filing of the final report will be remote, this Court feels that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement and harmony in the family life and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. 9. So, the application is allowed. Further proceedings in Crime No.50/2013 of Pettah Police station, Thiruvananthapuram district as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately so as to inform the Pettah police station for necessary further action in this regard. Sd/- ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1623 of 2013 7