Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 14 docs - [View All]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code
Citedby 1 docs
Lalithamma.K.Panoose vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2008

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Kerala High Court
Lp. No. 162/2011 ... vs By Adv. Sri.K.I.Sageer on 22 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

            THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935

                                           Crl.MC.No. 4055 of 2013 ()
                                                ---------------------------
         LP. NO. 162/2011 (CC.NO.255/2010) OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
                                          COURT, CHAVAKKAD
             CRIME NO. 4/2010 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR
                                          -----------------------------------------

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------

            MUHAMMED YOUSUFF,S/O.KUNHI MOHAMMED,
            AGED 40, MUSLIM VEETTIL, PADOOR DESOM,
            VENGITANGU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.


             BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT :
--------------------------------------------------------------

          1. STATE OF KERALA,
              REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (CRIME NO.04/2010),
              PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
              REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
              ERNAKULAM,PIN-68 031

          2. SUHARA,AGED 32, D/O.KUNHIMON HAJI,
              PERUMBARATHU VEETTIL, PERAKAM DESOM,
              POOKODU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,PIN-680 506.

                  R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMINE
                  R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.G.UMADEVI


            THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:




sts

CRMC.NO.4055/2013


                               APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:


ANNEX A1    COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
            BEFORE THE HON'BLE JFCM, CHAVAKKAD DATED 22/12/2009

ANNEX A2    COPY OF THE FIR NO.4/2010 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION DATED
            01/01/2010

ANNEX A3    COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.4/2010 OF PAVARATTY POLICE
            STATION DATED 31/01/2010


RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:               NIL




                                            /TRUE COPY/




                                            P.A.TO.JUDGE




sts



                     V.K.MOHANAN, J
          ---------------------------------------
                Crl.M.C.No.4055 of 2013
          ----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 12th day of September, 2013

                          ORDER

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is an accused in C.C.No.255/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.04/2010 of Pavaratty Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 498 A of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure A3 final report and all further proceedings in L.P.No.162/2011 ( C.C.No.255/20100 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad as the matter is settled out of court.

2. The gist of the allegation is that the marriage between petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 29/4/1999 as per the rites and ceremonies in Muslim community and they were residing in the petitioner's house and in that wedlock two children namely Sinva and Isha were born and that two years after the marriage, petitioner went to Gulf in connection with his employment and returned to India after two-three years. At the time of marriage, an amount of Crl.M.C.No.4055 of 2013 2 Rs.2 lakh and 80 sovereigns of gold were given to the defacto complainant and the petitioner misappropriated the said amounts and gold and her share etc and he ill-treated the 2nd respondent. Thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 498 A of I.P.C. Now according to the petitioner the entire disputes between himself and the second respondent, defacto complainant have been amicably settled and they are residing together and leading a happy marital life. The second respondent, defacto complainant had sworn into an affidavit dated 10/9/2013

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the Crl.M.C.No.4055 of 2013 3 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance against him.

6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

7. 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 Sections 406, 420 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 second 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.No.4055 of 2013 4 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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In Crl.M.C.No.4055 of 2013 5 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, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a Crl.M.C.No.4055 of 2013 6 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 Crl.M.C.No.4055 of 2013 7 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."

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, 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 Crl.M.C.No.4055 of 2013 8 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, this Crl.M.C.can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A3 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.255/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad.

Sd/-

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE AS