George vs State of Kerala

Alexander Thomas, J.—The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 878/2013 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-I, Cherthala. This arose out of crime No. 1945/2012 of Cherthala Police Station alleging offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against the petitioner, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, who is wife of the petitioner. There occurred disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in their matrimonial relationship. It is averred that due to the intervention of mediators and well-wishers, the disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have been amicably settled and the 2nd respondent has voluntarily agreed not to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein and agreed for quashing the said proceedings initiated at her behest. The marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has already been dissolved by the Family Court, Alappuzha and the de facto complainant has been given monetary reliefs. The 2nd respondent has sworn to Annexure A3 affidavit stating that she has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings initiated by her against the petitioner, which has led to C.C. No. 878/2013 now pending before the aforementioned court below and that she does not intend to proceed with the said criminal proceedings any further and that said proceedings are now unwarranted. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has chosen to file this Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings taken in pursuance of C.C. No. 878/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-I, Cherthala.

The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri. K. Ramanathan has taken notice for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.

Heard Smt. V.P. Sati, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Ramakanthan, the learned counsel appearing for R2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State.

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 petitioner 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 petitioner as she has no grievance against him and that she will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.

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.

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 2nd respondent, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/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 Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , 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 F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for Inherent compounding the offences under S. 320 of the Code statutory limitation power it is has 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 and on victim have settled their circumstances of would case and no category can and dispute depend the facts each 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 Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, , 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 F.I.R. 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 impermissible for 320 complaint to Code, Section of court the would be proceedings or F.I.R. or the quash it the criminal.

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, differences their the parties and concerned have amicably settled 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 to 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.

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 subsequent quashing of power of of F.I.R., complaint or the criminal proceedings.

There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times occupies an important place. The 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 ought to be quashed."

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. 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 wastage 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 A2 final report and all proceedings in C.C.No. 878/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-I, Cherthala stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Cherthala Police Station.