High Court allowed accused petitioners application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on settlement and reunion between husband and wife in family dispute involving matrimonial and other offences, holding continuation would be an abuse of process.
Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3008 of 2014 ()
CRIME NO. 79/2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1. MUHAMMEDKUNHI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALI HAJI, MUBARAK HOUSE, KADAMGODE, POLLAYIL, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. SABOORA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMEDKUNHI, MUBARAK HOUSE, KADAMGODE, POLLAYIL, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3. SAJITH. M.C., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. K.M. MUHAMMED HAJI, KADAMGODE, POLLAYIL, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
4. RAZAK. M.C., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. ASAINAR. C.H., KAITHAKKAD, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1. MOHAMMED KUNHI. K.C, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, KOTTAYIL CHERIYA HOUSE, MAVILAKADAPPURAM, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 3008 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
| ANX.AI. | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. |
|---|---|
| ANX.AII. | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 79 OF 2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION. |
| ANX.AIII | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01-04-2014 IN CRL.MC. NO. 1945/2014. |
| ANX.AIV. | A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. |
| RESPONDE | NT'S ANNEXURES :- NIL. |
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
=================
CRL.M.C.NO.3008 OF 2014
===================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2014
ORDER
This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station of Kasaragod District to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
CRL.M.C.NO.3008 OF 2014 2
compoundable in nature neither the police nor the Court will drop the further proceedings. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
to quash Annexure AII F.I.R in Crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station, Kasaragod District.
CRL.M.C.NO.3008 OF 2014 3
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Hosdurg which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code and on receipt the same, the present Annexure-A2 First Information Report was registered. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second petitioner herein against the first petitioner and her relatives which was also forwarded to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after receipt of the complaint crime No.898 of 2013 of Chandera police station was registration alleging offences under Section 498A and r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that the second petitioner and the first respondent are wife and husband. On account of the settlement, they have now decided to reside together. The matrimonial disputes between the parties as resulted in the registration of crime. It is also seen from the documents produced namely Annexure-A3 that the accused in crime No.898 of 2013 of Chandera police station had filed Crl.M.C.1945 of 2014 for quashing the proceedings and the same was allowed by this Court on the basis of settlement between the parties. Considering the fact the matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto complainant and the second petitioner have decided to live together and now living together as husband and wife now, there is no possibility of these parties co-operating with the investigation
CRL.M.C.NO.3008 OF 2014 4
and even if ultimately final report is filed, conviction in such cases will be remote. Since it is a family dispute which resulted in the registration of crime and it has been settled between the parties and now they are residing together harmoniously, the Court must give effect to the settlement and promote the harmony that has been restored between the parties especially husband and wife have decided to live together and in such cases pendency of criminal cases should not be a bar for their relationship to continue
[2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] , it is held as follows:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the
CRL.M.C.NO.3008 OF 2014 5
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to 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 case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and 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 proceeding 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 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.”
CRL.M.C.NO.3008 OF 2014 6
So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station of Kasaragod District against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Hosdurg and to inform the same to the concerned police station for necessary further action in this regard.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
R.AV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC upon settlement in matrimonial disputes involving compoundable offences.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court given the full settlement between parties.
Whether inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to restore harmony between husband and wife after settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶44
Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1. Muhammedkunhi, 2. Saboora, 3. Sajith. M.C., 4. Razak. M.C.
1. Mohammed Kunhi. K.C, 2. State of Kerala
K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
