Allowed

Basil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jul 2013Crl.MC/2536/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the quashing of a private complaint involving Section 498A IPC. The court held that since the matrimonial dispute had been amicably settled and the complainant had no further grievance, continuing proceedings would be a waste of judicial resources and an abuse of process. The decision relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Jitendra Raghuvanshi.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed; the private complaint C.C.No.661/2012 and all further proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

Basil 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013/17TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2536 of 2013 (D)

¶6

[C.C.NO. 661/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. BASIL, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ALI MUHAMMED MASTER, PALLOM, MUTHALAMADA P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ALI MUHAMMED MASTER, AGED 60 YEARS, PALLOM, MUTHALAMADA P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. BATHARUNEESA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.ALI MUHAMMED MASTER, PALLOM, MUTHALAMADA P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

4. AJEESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ALI MUHAMMED MASTER, PALLOM, MUTHALAMADA P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

5. JABBAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ALI MUHAMMED MASTER, PALLOM, MUTHALAMADA P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2. NIMISHA,, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.BASIL, MUYALOTTUKALAM, PALATHULLI, PERUVEMBU P.O, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 531.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA, R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Prv.

¶20

CRL.M.C. NO.2536/2013-D:

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

¶23

ANNEXURE A: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT, C.M.P. NO.919/2012 DATED 09-02-2012 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,CHITTUR.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 2536 of 2013

¶30

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2013

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the

¶33

Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.661 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur which is a case instituted upon a private complaint CMP No.919/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. with a prayer to pass an order quashing Annexure A private complaint [C.C.No.661/2012 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur] and all its further proceedings against the petitioners as the matter is settled out of court.

¶34

The allegation in the above case is that the first petitioner

¶35

married the second respondent herein, who is the complainant in C.C.No.661 of 2012 and the above complaint is filed stating that

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.2536 of 2013

¶37

:-2-:

¶38

though the petitioner was given 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of 1 lakh and the furniture worth 50,000/-, which were entrusted with the accused, the same were mis-appropriated by the accused and the complainant was harassed alleging that the dowry given was insufficient and they demanded more dowry and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498A and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶40

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.

¶41

The learned counsel for the second respondent, who on the

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2536 of 2013

¶43

:-3-:

¶44

basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted

¶45

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.

¶46

I have carefully considered the above submissions 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 of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

¶47

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offence involved in the above case is only Section 498A of I.P.C. which is more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offence is involved, the real parties to the dispute approached

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.2536 of 2013

¶49

:-4-:

¶50

this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the second respondent, it appears to me that 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, v. in the decision reported in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Babita Raghuvanshi and another [2013 (1) KLD 817(SC)], has held as follows:-

¶51

“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 the sole ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.2536 of 2013

¶53

:-5-:

¶54

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

¶55

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.”

¶56

“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-

¶57

Crl.M.C.No.2536 of 2013

¶58

:-6-:

¶59

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.

¶60

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.”

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

Crl.M.C.No.2536 of 2013

¶64

:-7-:

¶65

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

¶66

parties want a quietus to the criminal case as well.

¶67

According to me, in the light of the facts and

¶68

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.

¶69

Crl.M.C.No.2536 of 2013

¶70

:-8-:

¶71

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure A private complaint [C.C.No.661/2012 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur] and all its further proceedings against the petitioners.

¶72

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶73

MBS/

¶74

Crl.M.C.No.2536 of 2013

¶75

:-9-:

Basil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basil 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

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Nazer Vs Ashokkumar

P.Rahim Vs E.P.Jayarajan

Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Koyakutty Vs the State of Kerala

Rmp Infotech Private Limited Vs State of Kerala