Allowed

Usha George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2013Crl.MC/1537/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court entertained a criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC arising from matrimonial disputes. Noting an amicable settlement between the parties, the Court held that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of all proceedings in C.C. No. 885 of 2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom.

Usha George Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1537 of 2013 ()

¶6

CC. NO.885/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, VAIKOM.

¶7

PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:-

¶8

USHA GEORGE, W/O.SHINE PAUL, AGED 30 YEARS, KEEZHVANCHIYIL HOUSE, POONJAR P.O., PERUNILAMKARAYIL (VIA), ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND ACCUSED 1 TO 3:-

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶12

2. SHINE PAUL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.M.J. PAILY, MANNACHAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PERUVA P.O., SHANTHIPURAMKARAYIL, NEEZHOORE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶13

3. ELIAMMA PAILY, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.M.J.PAILY, MANNACHAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PERUVA P.O., SHANTHIPURAMKARAYIL, NEEZHOORE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶14

4. SHEEJA PAILY, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.M.J.PAILY, MANNACHAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PERUVA P.O., SHANTHIPURAMKARAYIL, NEEZHOORE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R2 TO R4 BY ADVS. SRI.JOSE TOM C. KANDATHIL, SRI.PETER ISAAC.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1537 of 2013

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.885/2011 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, VAIKOM.

¶22

ANNEXURE A2. TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.06.2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER, 2ND ACCUSED AND HIS FATHER.

¶23

ANNEXURE A3. AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.03.2013.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

rs.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 1537 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2013

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the

¶34

Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.885 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Cass Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all proceedings in C.C.No.885 of 2011 on the

¶35

file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom as the matter is settled out of court.

¶36

According to the petitioner/the de facto complainant, she was married by the second respondent on 15.5.2008 at St.Sebastian Church, Santhipuram as per the rites and customs prevailing in the Christian community and a child was born in the wedlock and during the stay along with the accused, they have harassed the petitioner

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.1537 of 2013

¶38

:-2-:

¶39

mentally and physically. Now, the case of the de facto complainant as well as the accused is that the matter is settled out of court. Therefore, the de facto complainant came forwarded by filing the above Crl.M.C. with a prayer to quash all proceedings in C.C.No.885/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 to 4. I have also heard the learned Public

¶41

Prosecutor.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant 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.

¶43

The learned counsel for the second respondent/accused, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.1537 of 2013

¶45

:-3-:

¶46

respondents, submitted that the matter is settled out of court and pleaded for dropping the proceedings pending against them.

¶47

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the

¶48

respective counsel. Annexure A2 is the photostat copy of the agreement arrived into between the parties to the dispute and Annexure A3 is the affidavit of the de facto complainant. 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.

¶49

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 Section 498A read with Section 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

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.1537 of 2013

¶51

:-4-:

¶52

parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the second respondent/ 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)], has held as

¶53

follows:-

¶54

“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

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.1537 of 2013

¶56

:-5-:

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

“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-

¶60

Crl.M.C.No.1537 of 2013

¶61

:-6-:

¶62

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.

¶63

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.”

¶64

In the present case, the only offence involved is under Section 498A

¶65

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

¶66

Crl.M.C.No.1537 of 2013

¶67

:-7-:

¶68

from the matrimonial issues, which are now settled. Consequently, the

¶69

parties want a quietus to the criminal case as well.

¶70

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 the trial proceeded, 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.

¶71

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

¶72

Crl.M.C.No.1537 of 2013

¶73

:-8-:

¶74

proceedings in C.C.No.885 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First

¶75

Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom.

¶76

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶77

MBS/

Usha George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha George v. State of Kerala

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

Shafeer Vs State of Kerala

Subran Vs State of Kerala

Sabhapathi Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Libi Vs Jayan

B.Unnikrishnan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vacb, SIC-1, Thiruvananthapuram