Vinod T. N v. Ambili K.P and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/10TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3223 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 488/2013 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT --------------------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 :** **---------------------------------------------** **VINOD.T.N, S/O.T.N.NEELAKANDAN ILAYATH, THOTTATHIL ILLAM VENGALLOOR P.O., KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.** **BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. AMBILI K.P., AGED 31 YEARS** **D/O.KESAVAN MOOSAD, KANNAMCHERI PANNIKKATTU ILLAM KARANGAPARA, OZHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676321.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2013, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO. 3232/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 3223 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :** **------------------------------------ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.488/2013 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT IN B.A. NOS.4553 AND 4713 OF 2013 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 24.07.2013. ANNEXURE-C AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT INFORMING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **Mn** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.3223 & 3232 of 2013 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of August, 2013** ## **ORDER** As the parties to the above two M.Cs are more or less same and the subject matter of the above M.Cs are identical and interconnected and especially the parties to the above M.C.s have settled the matter, the above two M.Cs. are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.3223 of 2013 is directed against Crime No.488 of 2013 of Tanur Police Station, whereas Crl.M.C.No.3232 of 2013 is against Crime No.483 of 2013 of the very same Police Station. Crime No.488 of 2013 is registered at the instance of the first respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner herein. Whereas Crime No.483 of 2013 is based upon the intimation furnished by the first respondent, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the first respondent in the above two cases, both the criminal as well as the matrimonial disputes are settled Crl.M.C.Nos.3223 & 3232 of 2013 :-2-: through the Mediation held in Kerala Mediation Centre at High Court. On the basis of the settlement arrived through the mediation, now the spouses has decided to dissolve the marriage and to put an end to their marital relationship. In both the M.C.s they produced the settlement arrived in the Mediation Centre as Annexure-B and the de facto complainant, who is the first respondent in the above Crl.M.C.s have filed separate affidavits as Annexure-C. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 341, 324, 326, 308, 406 and 498(A) of IPC which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 1[st] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/ accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this Crl.M.C.Nos.3223 & 3232 of 2013 :-3-: juncture, it is relevant to note the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012 (4) KLT 108(SC)] and **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others** v. **Babita Raghuvanshi and another** [2013 (1) KLD 817 (SC)]. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “57. 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, mercandile, 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 ## Crl.M.C.Nos.3223 & 3232 of 2013 :-4-: 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........” Further, in **Jitendra Raghuvanshi's case,** the Apex Court has held as follows:- “7. 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. 8. 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 well-wishers, ## Crl.M.C.Nos.3223 & 3232 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 non-compoundable in nature.” “12. 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. 13. 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 ## Crl.M.C.Nos.3223 & 3232 of 2013 :-6-: 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.” Considering the particular facts and circumstances in this case, it can be seen further that the criminal proceedings are initiated consequent to the matrimonial dispute arose among the parties and both the disputes are now amicably settled between the parties. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decisions will be squarely applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote such settlement, particularly when the settlement is arrived through mediation at the Kerala Crl.M.C.Nos.3223 & 3232 of 2013 :-7-: Mediation Centre at High Court instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution, resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, these Crl.M.C.s can be allowed granting the reliefs as sought for. In the result, Crl.M.C.No.3223 of 2013 is allowed quashing Annexure-A F.I.R. and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.488 of 2013 of Tanur Police Station, Malappuram District. Crl.M.C.No.3232 of 2013 is allowed quashing Annexure-A F.I.R. and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.483 of 2013 of Tanur Police Station, Malappuram District. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj