Allowed

Christin P Mathai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2014Crl.MC/5050/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court quashed criminal proceedings for offences under IPC sections 451 and 354A. The court held that since the dispute was amicably settled and the victim had no further grievance, continuing the trial would be an abuse of process given the personal nature of the offences.

What did the court decide?

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. exercised to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1336/2013 pending in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla.

Christin P Mathai Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/28TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5050 of 2014 ()

¶6

IN CC 1336/2013 of JJUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT.,THIRUVALLA

¶7

CRIME NO. 545/2013 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶9

CHRISTIN P MATHAI, AGED 21 YEARS THEKKEPAZHANGERIL HOUSE, NIRANAM CENTRAL P.O. THIRUVALLA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

¶11

SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶15

JINCY VARGHESE, AGED 19 YEARS D/O.V.K.VARGHESE, KATTUNILATHU VALUPARAMBIL HOUSE NIRANAM CENTRAL P.O., THIRUVALLA-689101.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶17

BY ADV.SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 5050 of 2014 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF C.C.NO.1336/2013 ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.8.2014

¶23

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

V.K.MOHANAN, J

===========================

¶29

Crl.M.C No.5050 of 2014

¶30

============================

¶31

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2014

¶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 petitioner, who is accused in C.C.No.1336/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, for the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 A of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C No.1336/2013 on the

¶34

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

¶35

The allegation in the above case is that on 05.07.2013 the accused had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted her and outraged her modesty by holding her hand and thereby the accused has committed the aforesaid offences and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court.

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.M.C No.5050 of 2014

¶38

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶40

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance against him.

¶41

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.

¶42

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are under Sections 451 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 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

¶43

Crl.M.C No.5050 of 2014

¶44

¶45

having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2^nd respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the 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 reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶46

“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..

¶47

It is further held as follows:-

¶48

“...... ... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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 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........”

¶49

Crl.M.C No.5050 of 2014

¶50

¶51

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. Thus, I am of the view that 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.

¶52

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 1336/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶55

vdv

¶56

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Christin P Mathai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Christin P Mathai 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

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K Vs State of Kerala

Suprabashg C.G Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Jancy Benny Vs State of Kerala

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh Vs Nazima Sheikh

Arun.a.S @ Subash Vs State of Kerala