Kerala High Court
Leju Kuttan.K vs The State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/17TH ASWINA, 1936
Crl.MC.No.5670 of 2014
---------------------------------
CC NO.1237/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,ATTINGAL
CRIME NO.751/2012 OF KAZHAKKUTTOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANDAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
-------------------------------------------------------
1. LEJU KUTTAN.K,AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.KUTTAN,SUDHA VIHAR,KALLINMOODU,
ELAMBA P.O.,ATTINGAL.
2. SUDARMINI,AGED 62 YEARS,W/O.KUTTAN,SUDHA VIHAR,
KALLINMOODU,ELAMBA P.O.,ATTINGAL.
3. A.KUTTAN,AGED 70 YEARS,SUDHA VIHAR,
KALLINMOODU,ELAMBA P.O., ATTINGAL.
BY ADV. SRI.NEMOM CHANDRA BABU
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
2. SINI R.MONIYAN,D/O.R.MONIYON,RESIDING AT SREEKARTHIKA,
CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 588.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH
R2 BY ADV.SRI.S.JUSTUS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
pk
Crl.MC.No.5670 of 2014
---------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES
----------------------------------------
ANNEXURE-I:CERTIFIED OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 8.8.2012.
ANNEXURE-II:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 22.3.2013.
ANNEXURE-III:ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL
-------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
pk
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
================== Crl.M.C.No.5670 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 9O day of October, 2014 th R D E R The petitioners herein are the three accused in crime No.751/2012 of Kazhakuttam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners had demanded more dowry from the 2nd respondent's parents and that they had physically and mentally harassed the defacto complainant, which has resulted in Annexure-I FIR in crime No.751/2012 of Kazhakuttam Police Station. Thereafter, the Kazhakuttam Police authorities investigated the matter and submitted the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal, as per Annexure-II final report dated 22.3.2013 and the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the evidence and numbered the matter as C.C.No.1237/2012. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent defacto complainant had amicably settled the disputes as evidenced by Annexure-III affidavit dated 8.8.2014 sworn to by the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioners have chosen to file this
- : 2 :-
Crl.M.C. with the prayers to quash Annexure-1 FIR in crime No.751/2012 of Kazhakuttam Police Station and to quash Annexure II final report in C.C.No. 1237/2012 on file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal, in the aforementioned crime.
2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.S.Justus has taken notice for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
3. Heard Sri.Nemom Chandra Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.S.Justus, the learned counsel appearing for R2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which has 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
- : 3 :-
money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2nd respondent that the 2nd 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 impugned criminal proceedings is allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that that court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard.
7. 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
- : 4 :-
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 2nd 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, 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.
statutoryInherent limitationpoweritishas to be exercised in accord of wide plenitude with no but 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 andonvictim have settled their circumstances ofwould case and no category canand dispute depend the facts each be prescribed..
It is further held as follows:-
- : 5 :-
"......... 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. 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 thethe prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since320 offences arequashitthe non-compoundable under impermissible for the court toCode, Section of the would be 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-
- : 6 :-
wishers,differences the parties concerned have amicably settled their settlement.
said compromise beforethereto,
Pursuantandthe executedappellants
a compromise/
Trialthe filed the
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.
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 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 exercisesubsequent quashing of power of of FIR, complaint or the criminal proceedings.
16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.
occupies an important placeThe it has an important role institution of marriage and 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
- : 7 :-
ought to be quashed."
8. 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 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. This Court also is inclined to hold that since the mediated settlement has resolved the family disputes in this case, social interest and public interest is also subserved by protecting the parties by giving them impunity from the impugned criminal proceedings, as the continuance of the criminal proceedings would only result in upsetting and disharmonizing the settled the disputes between the parties. 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
- : 8 :-
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.
9. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure I FIR in crime No.751/2012 of Kazhakuttam Police Station is quashed and the impugned Annexure II final report in C.C.No. 1237/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal, in the aforementioned crime also stands quashed.
The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Kazhakuttam Police Station.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.S. to Judge
- : 9 :-