V.S. Unnimaya v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.4556 OF 2020(H)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 678/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, TRIVANDRUM** **CRIME NO.1568/2018 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **V.S.UNNIMAYA AGED 23 YEARS D/O.SINDHU.T.G., MANIMANDIRAM, ATTUPURAM VILLAGE & P.O. KADAKKAL. (DE-FACTO COMPLANANT IN CRIME NO.1568/2018 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION).** **BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/ACCUSED:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** - **2 THE SHO (CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE), KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **4 VISHAKH, AGED 32 YEARS** **S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, REKHA NIVAS, PERINGODE, PALLICHAL P.O., NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020.** **R4 BY ADV. SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT** ## **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C No.4556 of 2020 2 # **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **===========================** ## **Crl.M.C No.4556 of 2020** **===========================** Dated this the 14[th] day of December, 2020 ## **ORDER** The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows : _“................ to Quash the final report in Crime No.1568/2018 of Karamana Police Station, now pending as C.C 678/2019 before the Honourable Judicial 1[st] class Magistrate Court-1 Thiruvananthapuram, in the interest of justice”_ 2. Heard Ms.A.S.Uthara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (lady de facto complainant), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 3 & Sri.Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.4 (accused). 3. The petitioner herein had married the 4[th] respondent. Later, the matrimonial disputes arose between them and it led to the initiation and registration of the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.1568/2018 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, on the basis of the First Information Statement by the petitioner (de facto complainant), in which the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the Crl.M.C No.4556 of 2020 3 sole accused therein, for offences punishable under Secs.498A, 294(b) & 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation have filed the impugned Annexure-A1 final report/charge sheet in the said Crime No.1568/2018 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram and after taking cognizance, the case is now pending as calendar case, C.C.No.678/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. Now from the submissions of Ms.A.S.Uthara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (lady de facto complainant) and Sri.Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.4 (accused), it appears that wisdom has ultimately dawned on these spouses who have been warring for quite some time and it also appears that they have decided to call off the battle in between the spouses and that peace and happiness through a contended marital life would be the better option, instead of continuing the battle between the spouses. From the submissions of the learned advocates, it appears that the entire disputes between these battling spouses has now been resolved and they have decided to live together to continue their marital relationship in harmony and peace. Accordingly, Ms.A.S.Uthara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (lady Crl.M.C No.4556 of 2020 4 de facto complainant) would submit that her party is fully prepared to let bygones be bygones and has also decided to ensure that the continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings in this case, would be hindrance to their contended marital life and that she is no longer interested to continue the impugned prosecution measures. 5. Sri.Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.4 (accused) would submit that the allegations, which forms the basis for the impugned criminal proceedings were made at a time when the spouses were having matrimonial disputes on account of temperamental differences and the allegations were made in the context of misunderstandings. Further, the learned advocates appearing for the abovesaid spouses would submit that they are now living together under one roof and that this Court may quash the impugned criminal proceedings on account of the settlement of disputes between them, as otherwise it would stand in the way of their harmonious marital relationship, etc. This Court has held in _**Ayshath Muneera Hameed.T.M v. Chikkilodancheriya Kooveri Davood and anr.**_ [2017 (2) KLT 617 = 2017 (2) KHC 799] that in cases involving offences as per Sec.498A of the IPC, which has arisen finally on account of the matrimonial disputes between spouses, Crl.M.C No.4556 of 2020 5 even the de facto complainant can maintain petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings for such offences on the ground of settlement of the disputes between spouses, etc. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor was earlier requested to get instructions in the matter and today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor would submit on the basis of instructions that the Investigating Officer has conducted an enquiry and has also recorded the statement of the petitioner/de facto complainant, wherein she has stated that the entire disputes between the abovesaid spouses have now been settled and that she does not wish to continue the impugned criminal proceedings any longer and it appears that the spouses are now living together, etc. 7. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not Crl.M.C No.4556 of 2020 6 serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 8. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that since the offences alleged in this case have mainly arisen in the context of matrimonial disputes between the parties and since the spouse have settled all the disputes and are now living together in the same roof, this Court is of the considered view that the inherent extraordinary discretionary powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C would be befittingly invoking the facts and circumstances of this case. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-A1 final report/charge sheet filed in the Crl.M.C No.4556 of 2020 7 impugned Crime No.1568/2018 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, as against the petitioner/accused therein and all further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioner/accused therein, will stand quashed and set aside. 9. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, who is dealing with calendar case, C.C.No.678/2019, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd Crl.M.C No.4556 of 2020 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 1568/2018 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION.**