Kerala High Court
Nazeemudheen vs Nashitha on 4 February, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/15TH MAGHA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1776 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
CC.NO. 29/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOCHI
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NAZEEMUDHEEN, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, KATTISSERRY HOUSE,
PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.
2. ARIFA RAHMAN,AGED 51 YEARS,
W/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, KATTISSERRY HOUSE,
PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.
3. NAHAS, AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, KATTISSERRY HOUSE,
PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NASHITHA, AGED 24 YEARS,
D/O.PAREETH, EDATHATTU HOUSE, SHABNA MANZIL,
ROSE GARDEN, POONKUNNAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 103
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031
R1 BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 1776 of 2013 ()
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
---------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.672/2011 OF THE
KOCHIN CASBA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS CC NO.29/2013 ON
THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-11, KOCHI.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................
Crl.M.C.No.1776 of 2013
..................................................
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2014.
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the accused in C.C.No.29/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi to quash the proceedings on the basis of the composition entered into between them and the defacto complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.29/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi. It was originated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second respondent herein against the petitioners alleging commission of the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Thrissur which was forwarded to the police for investigation by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of the complaint, Thrissur Town East police registered a case as Crime No.479/2011 and thereafter it was sent to Palluruthy police station as the incident occurred within their jurisdiction, according to the Thrissur police and it was re registered as Crime No.672/2011 of Kochi Kasaba police station. Thereafter the Crl.M.C.No.1776 of 2013 2 final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi and that court has taken cognizance of the case as C.C.No.29/2013 under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and that is pending before that court. Since, according to the petitioners, no ingredients of offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code have been made out, they wanted to quash the proceedings by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. This court has admitted the case and issued notice to the first respondent and she appeared through counsel. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been settled between the parties and first respondent has filed Crl.M.A.No.1104/2014 expressing her desire not to proceed with the prosecution as the matter has been settled between herself and the petitioners and to quash the proceedings after recording the settlement.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the first respondent submitted that since the matter has been settled between the parties, defacto complainant is not interested in proceeding with the case as the settlement was effected due to the intervention of family members and well wishers and they Crl.M.C.No.1776 of 2013 3 decided to separate and all the cases pending before the Family Court, Thrissusr were also settled and withdrawn. So, she has no objection in quashing the proceedings.
6. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. It is an admitted fact that the first petitioner married the first respondent and lived together as husband and wife for some time. Thereafter difference of opinion arose between them and they started residing separately. Several litigations have been initiated by the first respondent before the family court and that also resulted in initiating this prosecution under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. They have decided to separate and there is no dispute now subsisting between them. So I am not at this stage to go into the question as to whether the allegations are sufficient to quash the proceedings as the matter has been settled between the parties and the first respondent wanted to record the composition and dispose of this matter by quashing the proceedings. 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 in family disputes, if the parties have settled their issues due to the intervention of well wishers and family members and does not want to proceed with the criminal Crl.M.C.No.1776 of 2013 4 prosecution initiated, then that must be honoured and the prosecution has to be quashed invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So considering the circumstances that it is a family dispute and the matter has been settled between the parties and the first respondent has filed an affidavit admitting the settlement and expressing her willingness to compound the case, I feel that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings. So, the application is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No,29/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-II, Kochi (Crime No.672/2011 of Kochi Kasaba police station against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1776 of 2013 5