Vinod.K.P and Geetha v State of Kerala and The Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakkara Police Station, and Sithara M.S

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/1ST KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No.5978 of 2014** ## **---------------------------------** **CMP NO.1676/2013 IN CC NO.1651/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ALUVA.** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2** **-----------------------------------------------------** **1. VINOD.K.P,AGED 39,S/O.LATE K.K.PARAMESWARAN, B-1333,ANUPAMA,SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, KAKKANADU WEST P.O,KOCHI-682030, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. GEETHA,AGED 58,W/O.K.K.PARAMESWARAN, B-1333,ANUPAMA,SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, KAKKANADU WEST P.O,KOCHI-682030, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.C.VARGHESE KURIAKOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (STATION HOUSE OFFICER), THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, KAKKANADU,PIN-682030.** **3. SITHARA M.S,AGED 32,D/O.P.V.SOMAN, MADATHINAL,KANJIRAMATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682315.** ## **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **pk** ## **Crl.MC.No.5978 of 2014** ## **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:** **---------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AS CMP NO.1107/2009.** **ANNEXURE A2:CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR REGISTRED IN CRIME NO.582/2009 ON THE FILES OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A3:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A4:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 20/1/2014 IN CMP NO.1676/2013.** **ANNEXURE A5:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DTD 29/1/2014.** **ANNEXRUE A6:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A7:ORIGINAL COPY OF HTE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL** **------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **pk** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 23[rd] day of October, 2014** ## **ORDER** The above captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.), seeking invocation of the inherent powers of this Court conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned Annexure A3 final report/charge sheet in the impugned Annexure A2 FIR in Crime No.582 of 2009 of Thrikkakkara Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C No.1651 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Aluva and the impugned Annexure A4 order for further investigation etc. to secure the ends of justice. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.582 of 2009 of Thrikkakkara Police Station for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered on the basis of Annexure A1 private criminal complaint filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 2. The brief of the prosecution allegation is that after the marriage of the 1[st] petitioner and 3[rd] respondent, it is alleged that Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 2 cash worth Rs.1.5 lakhs and gold ornaments weighing 75 sovereigns were entrusted to the petitioners on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent and that 2[nd] petitioner has domination over the 1[st] petitioner and on account of her interference, the marriage fell apart. The child born out of the wedlock died within six months of his birth. The complaint was filed alleging cruelty and criminal breach of trust for not return of the articles. After investigation the Police filed the impugned Annexure A3 final report/charge sheet in the aforementioned crime for offences under Sections 323 and 294 B of Indian Penal Code. The 3[rd] respondent herein filed objection against the acceptance of such report and thereupon by the impugned Annexure A4 order dated 20.01.2014, the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned ordered further investigation in respect of the above crime. There were other pending litigations arisen out of the matrimonial disputes in the Family Court concerned. Original Petition No.385 of 2009 on the file of Family Court Ernakulam was filed by the wife seeking recovery of Rs.1.5 lakhs with 12 % interest per annum and also seeking return of gold ornaments. Original Petition No.384 of 2009 was filed seeking decree of divorce and both the Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 3 Original Petitions were allowed by the Family Court as per order dated 04.10.2012. Thereupon Mat. Appeal No.795 of 2012 was filed to challenge the decree in O.P No.385 of 2009 and the matter was referred to mediation and in the mediation a settlement was arrived at on 29.01.2014 as evident from Annexure A5 herein. Clause No.3 of Anenxure A5 reads as follows: “3. That with this compromise the criminal case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva as C.C No.1651/2009 has to be closed, if necessary, by the respondent moving the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by invoking proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to close the proceedings in the above case C.C No.1651/2009. - a) That the respondent has agreed that the proceedings for the closure of C.C No.1651/2009 will be taken on payment of the agreed amount, within the period of 6 months and is not postponing issue of closure of the criminal proceedings to a date after 6 months on account of the assurance. - b) That the respondent will file affidavit, if necessary, before the Hon'ble High Court enabling closure of the proceedings in the criminal case. - c) The respondent agrees not to initiate any proceedings in connection with the criminal case C.C.1651/2009 during the above said period of 6 months.” Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 4 Later, the payments due were made as per Annexure A6. Third respondent has also filed an affidavit dated 16.10.2014 produced as Annexure A7 herein in this Crl.M.C stating that all the disputes between the petitioners and the 3[rd] respondent had been settled and she had received the amount payable by the petitioners and that Annexure A6 is the receipt in that regard and that she has no objection in this Crl.M.C being allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings related to C.C No.1651 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Aluva being quashed including Annexure A4 order for further investigation. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed. 3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.K.R.Vinod has taken notice for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala and 2[nd] respondent Sub Inspector of Police. 4. Heard Sri.Varghese Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.R.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for 3[rd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 5 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned impugned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and 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. 6. Sri.K.R.Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 3[rd] respondent that the 3[rd] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners 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 petitioners as she has no grievance against them and that she will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 6 impugned final report is allowed. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 8. After having carefully considered the submissions of the 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 alleged are more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. 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 3[rd] respondent, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/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, Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 7 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 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. Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 8 ## **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 well-wishers, 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. Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 9 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 noncompoundable, 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.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the matrimonial disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 10 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. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure A3 final report/ Charge Sheet in the impugned Crl.M.C No.5978 of 2014 11 Annexure A2 FIR in Crime No.582 of 2009 of Thrikkakkara Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C No.1651 of 2009 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - Aluva, and Annexure A4 order for further investigation and all further proceedings arising therefrom stands quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Thrikkakkara Police Station. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** vdv