Allowed

Abhilash K S v. Ambili Babu

Kerala HC2 Jul 2013Crl.MC/1090/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case, allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings instituted for offences under Sections 498(A) and 34 of IPC. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Jitendra Raghuvanshi, the court held that since the matrimonial dispute was amicably settled out of court, continuing the trial would be an abuse of process and against the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A3 (Charge Sheet) and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 134 of 2012 were quashed, granting relief to the petitioners.

Abhilash K S Vs Ambili Babu — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2013/11TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1090 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 134/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SOUTH PARAVOOR. CRIME NO. 813/2011 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-:

¶8

1. ABHILASH K S., AGED 36 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.SHANKARAN, "VISWADEEPTHI", KAMMARA HOUSE,

¶10

POOTHOLE DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE,

¶11

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2. VISWABHARATHI, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.SHANKARAN, "VISWADEEPTHI", KAMMARA HOUSE,

¶13

POOTHOLE DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE,

¶14

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

3. SHANKARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, "VISWADEEPTHI", KAMMARA HOUSE, POOTHOLE DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

¶17

RESPONDENTS(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:-:

¶18

1. AMBILI BABU,, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD, "ARUNODAYAM", THAZHAM, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 572.

¶19

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT S HYMA

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 1090 of 2013 ()

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶25

ANNEXURE A1. TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, SOUTH PARAVUR.

¶26

ANNEXURE A2. TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 02.06.2011 IN CRIME NO.813/2011 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶27

ANNEXURE A3. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.813/2011 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶28

ANNEXURE A4. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 28.01.2012 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSELS.

¶29

ANNEXURE A5. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.04.2012 GIVEN BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶30

ANNEXURE A6. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.04.2012 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

ANNEXURE A7. TRUE COPY OF THE KARAR DATED 23.04.2012 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶32

ANNEXURE A8. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.NO.231/2012 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.

¶33

ANNEXURE A9. TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P.NO.231/2012.

¶34

ANNEXURE A10. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2012 IN O.P.NO.231/2012 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2013

¶41

---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2013

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.134 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, South Paravur, Kollam district which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.813 of 2011 of Chathannoor Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 34 of I.P.C. With a prayer to uash Annexure-A3 charge sheet in Crime No.813 of 2011 of Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam district

¶44

and all further proceedings in C.C.No.134 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, South Paravur, Kollam district as the matter is settled out of court.

¶45

The allegation in the above case is that first accused married the de facto complainant on 28-12-2001 and while the de facto complainant was residing along with the accused in the matrimonial home, she was subjected to harassment demanding more dowry and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of I.P.C and now, the case of the petitioners

¶46

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2013

¶48

are that the matter is settled out of court.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as

¶50

well as the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioners 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.

¶52

The learned counsel for the first respondent who on

¶53

the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent and in the light of the affidavit dated 26.03.2013 sworn into by the first respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them.

¶54

I have carefully considered the above submissions

¶55

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

¶56

¶57

Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2013

¶58

of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute,

¶59

the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

¶60

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 498(A) and 34 of I.P.C 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 first respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Honourable Apex Court, in the decision reported in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another [2013 (1) KLD 817(SC)],

¶61

has held as follows:-

¶62

“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

¶63

¶64

Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2013

¶65

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 noncompoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.

¶66

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 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

¶67

¶68

Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2013

¶69

ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are noncompoundable in nature.”

¶70

“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.

¶71

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 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.”

¶72

¶73

Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2013

¶74

In the present case, the only offence involved is under Section

¶75

498A of I.P.C. The criminal proceedings for the said offence

¶76

originated from the matrimonial issues, which are now settled. Consequently, the parties want a quietus to the criminal case as well.

¶77

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 decision 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 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

¶78

the decisions cited supra, this Crl.M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

¶79

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing

¶80

¶81

Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2013

¶82

Annexure -A3 and all further proceedings pending against the

¶83

petitioners in C.C.No. 134 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, South Paravur, Kollam.

¶84

V.K.MOHANAN

¶85

Judge

¶86

mns/

Abhilash K S v. Ambili Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash K S v. Ambili Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Vs Dhanya

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

N.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Salahudheen E.K Vs Union Territory Lakshadweep Administrator Kavarathy

Sheikh Ashraf Hussain Vs Canara Bank

Jose P.L. Vs State of Kerala