Shijumon, Shaji, Santha and Shiji Mol vs State of Kerala and Vineetha M.V.

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No. 259/2012 of Chittarickal Police Station, Kasargod District, to quash First Information Report u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused persons in Crime No. 259/2012 of Chittarickal Police Station, which was registered alleging commission of offence under Sections 498A, 354, 323 and 506(i) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The incident alleged arises out of matrimonial relationship between the defacto complainant wife (second respondent herein) and the first accused/husband, (the first petitioner herein). Petitioners/Accused 2 and 3 are the parents, and petitioner No. 4 is the sister, of first accused. The defacto complainant wife entered into matrimony with the first accused person on 19.12.2011. According to the wife, she had been staying in the matrimonial home after the marriage, and while staying together, husband left for Muscat. The accused 2 to 4 started ill treating the defacto complainant on one or other reasons, and complaining that the gold ornaments worth Rs. 4 lakhs and amount of Rs. 1 lakh given by the wife at the time of marriage was being insufficient, she was subjected to harassment. The husband, although was informed of the cruelty, did not react but he was in support of his parents and sister. There was an instance where defacto complainant and her mother were assaulted. Due to the intervention of the relatives and well wishers, entire disputes arising in the matrimony of the couple have been settled amicably and they started staying together under the same roof. Now the petitioners pray for quashing the proceedings on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-II, Hosdurg.

The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that they are now living together and there is no dispute between them and she has no objection in allowing the application. She has also filed an affidavit attested by a notary public stating above facts.

Heard the counsel for petitioners, second respondent and Public Prosecutor.

The above case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent herein against the petitioners alleging offence under Sections 498A, 354, 323 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is over and final report filed and case has been taken on file as CC. 1251/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-II, Hosdurg. In the meantime, the defacto complainant, who is none other than the wife of the first accused, settled the matter with the accused persons including her husband, first accused and they have decided to live together and she filed an affidavit before this Court stating that they are living together and she had no objection in quashing the proceedings and if the proceedings is allowed to continue, that will affect their matrimonial life. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they are not able to move the lower court. Hence this application has been filed to quash the proceedings.

Both the counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent submitted that they are living together and the dispute between them has been settled and they are leading a happy life.

In the decision reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, it has been held that,

It is within the powers of a High Court to quash criminal proceedings, involving non compoundable offences, on the basis of compromise reached between the offender and the victim. Compounding of offences u/s 320 of Cr.P.C. and quashing of criminal proceedings u/s 482 of the Code are different and distinct. High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with such proceedings in view of the settlement and compromise reached.

In the same decision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has considered the nature of cases, which could be quashed, when the matter has been settled between the parties, as follows:

But where offences involved are grave and heinous in nature like murder, rape, dacoity and also cases involving the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 the 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

In this case, it is seen from the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is over and final report has been filed. However, since it is a matter involving matrimonial dispute and both the husband and wife have resolved their dispute and decided to live together, it is the duty of this Court to promote family union than allowing them to fight in court. So, considering the circumstances there is no purpose in continuing the proceedings and it is in the interest of justice and also to promote the reunion between the spouses, this Court has to invoke the power u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the proceedings. So, the case registered against the petitioners on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent and registered as Crime No. 259/2012 of Chittarickal Police Station, Kasargod District and further proceedings pending, as C.C. 1251/2012, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-II, Hosdurg are hereby quashed. The above application is allowed and the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of Crime No. 259/2012 of Chittarickal Police Station of Kasargod District is quashed. The office is directed to communicate the order to the concerned court immediately.