Allowed

Santhosh K.Das v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Sept 2013Crl.MC/3424/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by a husband and wife seeking quashing of an FIR. The court quashed proceedings after finding that the matrimonial dispute was amicable, personal in nature, and settled, preventing abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure-A2 F.I.R. in Crime No.539 of 2013 and all further proceedings against the 1st petitioner.

Santhosh K.Das Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | 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 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3424 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 539/2013 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION , WAYANAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SANTHOSH K.DAS, S/O.C.K.KELU, AGED 30 YEARS, KOTTIPARA HOUSE, PANDIKADAVU, MANANTHAVADY, KALLODY VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. LITTY.R, W/O.SANTHOSH K.DAS, AGED 28 YEARS, KOTTIPARA HOUSE, PANDIKADAVU, MANANTHAVADY, KALLODY VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SHYAM FOR P1 SRI.P.ARUN FOR P2

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE-CRIME NO.539/2013) REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 3424 of 2013 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE-A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE

¶20

ANNEXURE-A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.539/2013 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION

¶21

ANNEXURE-A3: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶22

ANNEXURE-A4: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶23

ANNEXURE-A5: JOINT STATEMENT DATED 29.7.13

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.3424 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2013

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners among which the 1^st petitioner is the sole accused and 2^nd petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.539 of 2013 of Mananthavady Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 294(b) of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A2 F.I.R. in Crime No.539 of 2013 of Mananthavady Police Station as the matter is settled out of court.

¶34

The petitioners are husband and wife among which the husband is the accused and wife is the de facto complainant. The allegation is that on 27/05/2013 at about 10 a.m. the first petitioner/husband calling obscene words and manhandled his wife/the de facto complainant, who is the second petitioner herein and thus the first petitioner committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.3424 of 2013

¶36

:-2-:

¶37

324 & 294(b) of IPC. Now, according to the first petitioner, who is the accused and de facto complainant, more over husband and wife, they have settled the disputes and now they are residing together happily and leading peaceful marital life and the second petitioner does not want to prosecute against her husband, who is the first petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the first petitioner has sworn into Annexure-A3 affidavit and the second petitioner has also sworn into Annexure-4 affidavit. Besides the above, both of them have filed Annexure-A5 a joint statement of compromising the entire dispute.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the first petitioner as well as the 2^nd petitioner. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

The learned counsel for the first petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the above crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.3424 of 2013

¶41

:-3-:

¶42

I have carefully considered the above submission of the learned 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.

¶43

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 under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 294 (b) 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 petitioners, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the first petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.3424 of 2013

¶45

:-4-:

¶46

reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108

¶47

(SC)] in which the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶48

“57. 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 compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord 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 the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed..

¶49

It is further held as follows:-

¶50

“......... 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,mercandile, 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

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.3424 of 2013

¶52

:-5-:

¶53

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........”

¶54

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 is 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 and encourage 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 the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.3424 of 2013

¶56

:-6-:

¶57

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A2 F.I.R. in Crime No.539 of 2013 of Mananthavady Police Station and all further proceedings thereto against the

¶58

1^st petitioner/accused.

¶59

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶60

skj

Santhosh K.Das v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh K.Das 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

Lejukuttan Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian George Vs State of Kerala

Palakkeel Ranjith Vs Ittammal Prakasan

Jayakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

A.v.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh R Vs State of Kerala