Kalander U. vs State of Kerala

Alexander Thomas, J.—C.C. No. 1795/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-I, Kasargod, arose out of crime registered at the instance of the 4th petitioner herein, who is wife of the 1st petitioner. The matter was investigated by the Police and later filed final report in the matter, which led to C.C. No. 1795/2014 on the file of the aforementioned court. The 4th petitioner has filed Annexure A2 copy of settlement/deed of agreement between the parties and the parties have chosen to arrive at a mediated settlement of their disputes and found that they could not continue their matrimonial relationship any further and agreed for divorce. On that basis, the 1st petitioner has pronounced thalaque and issued letter of divorce dated 7.5.2014 to the 4th petitioner and that the 4th petitioner has received all her claims under the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986, including her fair provision for past and future maintenance and that nothing more is due to the 4th petitioner from the 1st petitioner and that Rs. 4,50,000/- (rupees four lakhs and fifty thousand only) has been paid to the 4th petitioner by the 1st petitioner in cash. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that both the husband and wife jointly filed this Crl. M.C. praying to quash Annexure 1 final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1795/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-I, Kasargod.

The Crl. M.C. has been admitted and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the respondent-State of Kerala.

Heard Sri. K.V. Sohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

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 is 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 petitioners has submitted that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and that the 4th petitioner-wife 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 petitioners 1 to 3 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.

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 petitioners, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in the light of the settlement arrived at by petitioners 1 to 3 on the one hand and the 4th petitioner on the other. 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 FIR 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 would offender and on victim have settled the their circumstances of each case and no category can and dispute depend the facts 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 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 320 offences are quash it the non-compoundable under impermissible for the court to Code, Section of the would be criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

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 FIR, complaint or the criminal proceedings.

There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Occupies an important place 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 I final report/charge sheet and all further proceedings pending against petitioners 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 1795/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-K, Kasargod are quashed. The petitioners 1 to 3 shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned, as well as before the Station House Officer, Badiadka Police Station.