498a Quashed -Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court of India

Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. on 15 March, 2013

Author: P.Sathasivam

Bench: P. Sathasivam, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Kurian Joseph

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 447 OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6462 of 2012)

Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. …. Appellant(s)

Versus

Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. …. Respondent(s)

2

3

4

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The important question that falls for determination in the instant appeal is about the ambit and scope of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) in quashing of the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences relating to matrimonial disputes.

3) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class I, Indore.

4) Brief facts:

a) The marriage of Jitendra Raghuvanshi (Appellant No. 1 herein) and Babita Raghuvanshi, respondent-wife, was solemnized on 22.02.2002 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the parties were residing together as husband and wife at District Baitul, M.P. On 05.03.2003, an FIR being No. 172 of 2003 was registered at P.S. Sarni, Dist. Baitul for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) at the instance of Babita Raghuvanshi – respondent-wife owing to the harassment and torture meted out to her in the matrimonial home by her husband and his relatives. A Criminal Case being No. 4166 of 2011 was also registered against the appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. b) During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, in the year 2012, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same, on 03.04.2012, a compromise/settlement application was filed for dropping of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 and FIR No. 172 of 2003 dated 05.03.2003 before the trial Court. Respondent-wife also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants. However, by order dated 03.04.2012, learned trial Judge rejected the said application.

c) Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2012, on 09.04.2012, the appellants herein filed an application being M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012 before the High Court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings launched against them. The High Court, by impugned order dated 04.07.2012, dismissed the application filed by the appellants herein stating that the court has no power to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of offences under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC since both are non-compoundable.

d) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal by way of special leave.

5) Heard Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Rahul, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

6) The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 of the Code has been examined by this Court in a catena of earlier decisions. In the present case, we are concerned about interference by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 in relation to matrimonial disputes. 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 IPC 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 IPC, whether the prayer can be declined on 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.

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 addition 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 not only the trial Court rejected such prayer of the parties but also the High Court failed to 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. 9) Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court inB.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand. After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held:

“8. … …. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held:

“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.”

10) As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.

11) The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

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-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.

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. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.

14) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore. 15) The appeal is allowed.

………….…………………………J.

(P. SATHASIVAM)

………….…………………………J.

(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

………….…………………………J.

(KURIAN JOSEPH)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 15, 2013.

———————–

 

Bombay HC allows Quashing IPC498A on application of complainant and accussed

Bombay High Court

Jasmine Vipul Bhatia Alias …

vs

The State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 2004

Equivalent citations: II (2004) DMC 162, 2004 (3) MhLj 262

Author: R Desai

Bench: R Desai

JUDGMENT

Ranjana Desai, J.

1. Petitioner 1 is the original complainant in case No. 285/P/96 (C.R. 322/95) pending before the Metropolitan Magistrates 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai. She was married to petitioner 2 Vipul Narottam Bhatia on 23rd January, 1995. Petitioner 3 Purnima Narottam Bhatia is the sister of petitioner 2 and petitioner 4 Narottam Haridas Bhatia is the father of petitioner 2.

2. Due to difference of opinion petitioner : could not pull on with her husband. They started residing separately from 14th February, 1995. On 6th February, 1995 petitioner 1 had filed a complaint with Pant Nagar Police Station against rest of the petitioners inter alia under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was registered as C.R. No. 322/95.

3. Admittedly on 26th November, 1996, the marriage between petitioner 1 and petitioner 2 was dissolved by consent decree of divorce. Thereafter petitioner 1 got re-married and she is now staying abroad.

4. In view of the amicable settlement of disputes, the petitioners have prayed that Criminal Case No. 285/5/96 pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate’s 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, be quashed. This is a rather unusual petition where the complainant and the accused have approached this court for quashing criminal cases filed at the instance of the complainant. The question is whether this court can quash the pending criminal proceedings which involve non-compoundable offence.

5. Mr. Mundargi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., . He

contended that though offence under Section 498A of the Code is not a compoundable offence, this court can in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“the Code” for short) quash the pending prosecution involving the said offence because under the changed scenario, if prosecution is allowed to continue it would result in abuse of process of Court.

6. I find substance in Mr. Mundargi’s contention. In State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy and Ors., the Karnataka High Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the respondent therein under Section 324, 326, 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal code on the ground that there was no sufficient ground for prosecuting them. The State challenged the High Court’s order in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the evidence collected by the prosecution was woefully inadequate for connecting the respondents with crime. There was no material on record on which the court could reasonably convict the accused and hence the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the High Court was justified in coming to a conclusion that for meeting the ends of justice the proceedings against the accused ought to be quashed. This is how the Supreme Court described the High Court’s inherent powers.

“In exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding 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. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be poermitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provisions which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”

It is thus clear that one of the considerations which weighed with the Supreme Court was the fact that there was no possibility of a conviction, if the case had proceeded. The prosecution therein was a “lame prosecution”.

7. B.S. Joshi’s case (supra), in the facts before the Supreme Court, a wife had filed a case against her husband and members of his family under Section 498A, 323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The parties thereafter settled the dispute. The marriage was dissolved. A petition then came to be filed in the High Court praying that the F.I.R. filed by the wife be quashed. The High Court refused to quash the F.I.R. on the ground that the offences were non-compoundable. The Supreme Court referred to its judgment in Muniswamy’s case (supra) and held that where the parties had amicably settled their matrimonial disputes to secure the ends of justice quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary. The Supreme Court observed that in such a situation Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It was observed that power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with utmost care and caution. Its exercise would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The sole purpose of exercise of this power is to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justices. The Supreme Court observed that in the facts of the case before it, the wife had filed an affidavit that the F.I.R. was registered due to temperamental differences. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. In such reasons for not supporting the imputations. In such eventuality there would almost be no chance of conviction and, therefore, it would not be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. In this view of the matter the Supreme Court quashed the F.I.R.

8. The above judgments of the Supreme Court would be applicable to the present case also. It is true that offences which are not mentioned in Section 320 of the Code cannot be compound. Admittedly the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code involved in the instant complaint cannot be compounded. But the petitioners are not seeking compounding of the said offence. The petitioners want the complaint to be quashed. The Courts of law should allow prosecution of the perpetrators of crime so that they are punished, if found guilty. But the courts cannot be persecutors. Depending on facts and circumstances of each case the court can always exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash a complaint, where the parties no longer bear any grudge against each other and want to bury their past. Particularly in matrimonial matters where there is an amicable settlement, allowing the prosecution to continue may be counter productive. When the chances of the prosecution ending in conviction are nil allowing such prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of process of court and quashing such proceedings would secure ends of justice. Quashing of such prosecutions would also lighten the burden of the courts, making it possible for tem to concentrate on other important cases. But this does not mean that powers under Section 482 of the code can be used in every case where parties come up with a case that there is a settlement. The gravity of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, the status of the victim and other attendent circumstances must be weighed by the court. This power has to be used with great care and circumspection and in exceptional cases. What may apply to matrimonial cases may not apply to other cases. Order quashing a proceeding would not create a precedent and each case will have to be dealt with having regard to its pecular facts and circumstances.

9. In the present case the parties have settled their disputes. The marriage is dissolved. Petitioner 1 has re-married and she is happily staying abroad. She does not want to prosecute her complaint. The prosecution can, therefore, be described as a lame prosecution. In such circumstances allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of process of the Court. It would not be in the interest of parties. Ends of justice would be secured, if the prosecution is quashed. Hence Criminal Case No. 285/P/96 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai is quashed.

10. Petition is disposed of.

Bombay High court allows compounding of IPC 498A in MM court

Bombay High Court

State Of Maharashtra

vs

Madhu Bhisham Bhatia And Ors.

on 16 February, 2004

Equivalent citations: I (2005) DMC 156, 2004 (3) MhLj 303

Author: P Gaikwad

Bench: P Gaikwad

JUDGMENT

P.B. Gaikwad, J.

1. State has filed appeal challenging the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate 31st Court, Vikroli, Bombay dated 13th November, 1992 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code as the offence has been duly compounded. In the appeal I heard Shri D. P. Adsule, A.P.P. for State, Respondents though served remained absent. It is submitted by Shri Adsule, A.P.P. that the offence under Section 498-A is not compoundable, however, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikroli, Bombay allowed the parties to compound the matter and accordingly acquitted the accused relying on the issue laid down in 1992 Criminal Law Journal, page 2106.

2. The facts in brief leading to the present appeal are that the marriage of complainant Bhavna took place with accused No. 1 in January, 1987. After her marriage she started residing with her husband along with her brother-in-law accused No. 2, mother-in-law accused No. 3 and father-in-law accused No. 4. It is the allegation that accused Nos. 1 to 4 then started harassing, ill-treating, maltreating the complainant and used to demand foreign goods. It is alleged that in the month of July, 1992 the accused demanded the cash amount of Rs. 15000/- and wireless telephone. The complainant informed about the said unlawful demands to her parents, those who have managed to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the accused/respondent. However, even thereafter ill-treatment, harassment continued at the hands of accused to complainant, accordingly complaint was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 by the complainant on the basis of which Crime No. 198 of 1992 was registered at Pantnagar Police Station.

3. The Police after investigating the above crime submitted charge-sheet. On 13th November, 1992 the complainant filed an application for permission to compound the offence, A.P.P. objected to allow the said application on the ground that offence under Section 498-A is not compoundable, in view of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code the Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikroli, Bombay, however, after hearing the parties allowed the said application filed by complainant and allowed the parties to compound the said criminal case and accordingly after recording the compromise acquitted the accused, the said order has been finally challenged by the prosecution.

4. Apparently on perusal of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code it is clear that offence under Section 498-A is not compoundable. Reference in respect is necessary to the application filed by the complainant to compound the case. According to her she lodged complaint against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law on 23rd June, 1992 at Pantnagar Police Station. She further made clear in the application that presently she is residing with her husband and with other family members of her husband. It is clarified that the complaint was filed on account of some differences between her and her husband however, at present the dispute is settled and they are living happily, peacefully and therefore, she does not want to proceed against her husband and other family members, accordingly a request is made for permission to compound the said criminal case. Though the A.P.P. objected the Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikroli, Bombay has granted permission to Smt. Bhavna i.e. complainant for compounding the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, as she is residing with her husband and other accused persons. The permission is granted considering her own welfare and welfare of accused persons and in view of the decisions 1992 Cri.L.J. 2106, Suresh Nathamal Rathi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. A reference in this respect is necessary to 1992 Criminal Law Journal, page 2106, Suresh Nathamal Rathi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. It is observed in the said Authority to the following effect:–

“A duty is cast upon the Court in first instance, in matrimonial cases where it may appear that there may be chance of saving a marriage, to make ever endeavoured to bring about reconciliation between the parties. Both from the personal and social point of view, stability of marriage has certain value, the duty is imposed on every Court to the Supreme Court.” It is further observed in the said authority to the following effect:–

“While granting permission to compound the offence, particularly under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, peculiar and special circumstances are to be considered and if considering the special and peculiar circumstances, if the trial Court is satisfied, then only parties in the matrimonial cases, keeping in mind the interest of the couple and its impart on the Society.”

A reference is also necessary to one another authority, viz. Judgment 2003(3) SC 277, B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Section 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Scope of the inherent powers of the High Court -Matrimonial discord – wife filing criminal complaint against husband under Section 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code – Subsequent settlement of disputes and differences between the couple and both agreeing for mutual divorce and filing petition accordingly – Wife thereupon filing petition praying for quashing of the FIR – State however opposing the petition – High Court dismissing the petition holding that since the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code are compoundable, the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to by-pass the mandatory provisions of Section 320 of the Code — whether the High Court justified in refusing to exercise its power to quash the proceedings. Allowing the appeal held that if for the purposes of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing. The Court has a duty to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. Where chance of an ultimate conviction is bleak, the Court while taking into consideration the special facts of a case can quash the criminal proceedings. Any hyper-technical view on the provisions of Section 498-A would be counter productive and act against the interests of women and against the object for which the provision was enacted.”

5. Thus in view of the ratio laid down in the above authorities considering the factual aspects in the present case as the application to compound the above criminal case is filed by the wife herself contending that presently she is residing with her husband and other family members including father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and that whatever differences between the parties has now settled and considering this above aspect the Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikroli, Bombay has allowed the application and granted permission to compound the matter. Thus I find that it is in the interest of a woman and it is further seen the settlement between the parties being genuine so far as regarding their matrimonial dispute is concerned and in view of this position I find that the appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed.

In the result appeal is dismissed.

IPC 498a Quashed-Mutual Compromise-Complainant Filed petition for Quashing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3760 of 2010()

 

1. HASEENA.K.V,AGED 22 YEARS,

… Petitioner

Vs

 

1. STATE OF KERALA-STATION HOUSE OFFICER, … Respondent

2. SIDDIQUE,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.MAMMADKOYA,

3. BICHEEBI,AGED 50 YEARS,W/O.MAMMADKOYA,

4. SAFIYA,AGED 25 YEARS,D/O.MAMMADKOYA,

5. ANWAR,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.SIDDIQUE,

6. HABEEB,AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.SIDDIQUE,

7. KOYAMON ALIAS KOYAKKA,AGED 50 YEARS, For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :13/09/2010

O R D E R

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

————————–

Crl.M.C.No.3760 of 2010

————————–

ORDER

Petitioner, the defacto complainant in C.C.Nos. 477/2009 and 542/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Kozhikode and C.C.No. 513/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Kozhikode, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. C.C.No.477/2009 was taken cognizance on Annexure-2 final report for the offences under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code. C.C.No.542/2009 was taken cognizance on Annexure-4 final report for the offences under Sections 342 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. C.C.No.513/2007 was taken cognizance on Annexure-6 final report for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed by the defacto complainant in C.C.No.477/2009 stating that entire disputes with respondents 2 to 7, the accused in the cases, were settled amicably, evidenced by Annexures-7 to 9 joint petitions. It is submitted that consequent to the settlement, she has no subsisting grievance against the accused and therefore, all the cases are to be quashed.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor was heard.

3. C.C.No.477/2009 was taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that petitioner was treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws. Affidavit filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when the matrimonial disputes were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. C.C.Nos.513/2007 and 542/2009 were taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is not the person to whom hurt was caused after wrongful restrainment. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to get those cases quashed. In any case, all the offences are compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. When the offences are compoundable, it is not for this Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. It is for the respective parties to approach the learned Magistrate for compounding the offences.

In such circumstances, petition is allowed in part. C.C.No.477/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Kozhikode is quashed. 13th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv

 

IPC 498a Quashed-Mutual Compromise

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4034 of 2010()

 

1. SIVARAJAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR … Petitioner

2. VIKRAMAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR

3. ALBERT JOSE, S/O.DEVARAM

4. BABU, S/O JOHNSON

Vs

 

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS … Respondent

2. LENI MOL, D/O.SUBHASHINI

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER

For Respondent :SRI.S.K.VINOD

The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :04/10/2010

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

——————————————————– CRL.M.C.NOs.4034 & 4035 OF 2010 ——————————————————- Dated 4th October, 2010 O R D E R

Petitioners in Crl.M.C.4034/2010 are accused 1 to 4 in C.C.384/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.4035/2010 are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.525/2008 before the same Court. Petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.M.C.4034/2010 are the same petitioners in Crl.M.C.4035/2010. Third petitioner in Crl.M.C.4035/2010 is the wife of second petitioner therein. Crl.M.C.4035/2010 is filed to quash the cognizance taken in C.C.525/2008 on Annexure-A2 final report for the offences under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Second respondent is the de facto complainant, who is the wife of first petitioner. Second respondent in Crl.M.C.4035/2010 is the same second respondent in Crl.M.C.4034/2010. As is clear from Annexure-A2 final report taken cognizance in C.C.525/2008, the case is that first petitioner husband and second petitioner the brother of first petitioner and third petitioner, the wife of second petitioner, treated second respondent with cruelty. Crime No.26/2008 of Pozhiyoor Police Station was registered under Annexure-A1 FIR based on the complaint filed by the second respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of the petitioner in Crl.M.C.4035/2010 is that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement second respondent has no grievance against the petitioners and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

2. Prosecution case in C.C.384/2008 as is clear from Annexure-A2 final report taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Sections 451, 354, 323 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is that due to enmity with second respondent, who filed a complaint against petitioners 1 and 2 alleging that they along with the wife of second petitioner, committed offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, the four petitioners in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the residential house of the second respondent on 1/5/2008 at about 10 p.m and threatened second respondent that unless she withdraw the case, she will be murdered and will cause hurt to the second respondent and thereby committed the offences. Crl.M.C.4034/2010 is filed contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement second respondent has no grievance against the petitioners and therefore, pending prosecutions are to be quashed.

3. Second respondent appeared in both cases through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled before the Family Court in O.P.1122/2008 and consequent to the settlement, she has no grievance against the petitioners and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the cases pending before the learned Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

5. Affidavit filed by the second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.525/2008 and 384/2008 establish that the offences alleged against the petitioners in C.C.525/2008 are matrimonial offences and offences alleged against the petitioners in C.C.384/2008 are purely personal in nature and all the disputes were settled amicably. As held by the Apex Court inB.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and proceed with the cases and endanger the cordial relationship between the husband and wife and their relatives. Similarly, as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) when the offences alleged against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.4034/2010 are purely personal in nature against second respondent and second respondent has settled the dispute with petitioners, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Petitions are allowed. C.C.384/2008 and 525/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara are quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

uj.

 

IPC 498a Quashed-Mutual Compromise

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4149 of 2010()

 

1. NOUSHAD

… Petitioner

Vs

1. ZULAIKABI C.H

… Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON For Respondent :SRI.SIJU MATHEW The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :11/10/2010

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

————————-

Crl.M.C No.4149 of 2010

————————–

Dated this the 11th October, 2010 O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused and 1st respondent the de facto complainant in C.C No.426/2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Kasaragod taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 498 A of I.P.C on Annexure A1 final report. Petitioner and 1st respondent are husband and wife. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C contending that the entire matrimonial disputes were settled and consequent to the settlement, 1st respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and therefore the case is to be quashed.

2. First respondent appeared through counsel and filed a joint petition along with the petitioner stating that the entire matrimonial disputes were settled and consequent to the settlement, 1st respondent has compounded the offence and therefore the case pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod is to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 1st respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. The offences under Section 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code are compoundable offences. First respondent the injured who was allegedly restrained by the petitioner is therefore competent to compound the offence though an offence under Section 498A is not compounded. As held by the Apex Court in B.S Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another ( 2003 (4) SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution and jeopardise the settlement of matrimonial disputes. Hence the joint statement filed by the 1st respondent establishes that she has already compounded the compoundable offences and settled the matrimonial disputes also. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C No.426 of 2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Kasaragod is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

ma

 

IPC 498a Quash-Mutual Compromise

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3869 of 2010()

 

1. KAVAYIKKARAN ISMAIL,

… Petitioner

2. K.NAFEESA,

3. A.G.MAHAMOOD,

4. KHADEEJA, D/O.NAFFEESA,

5. JAMEELA, DO.NAFFEESA,

6. KUNHAYISHA, AGED 34 YEARS, Vs

 

1. ODIYIL VADAKKEPURAYIL HASHIDA, … Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS For Respondent :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :14/10/2010

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

————————-

Crl.M.C No.3869 of 2010

————————–

Dated this the 14th October, 2010 O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused and 1st respondent the defacto complainant in C.C No.462/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C on Annexure A2 final report submitted by S.I. of Police, Payyannur Police Station. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably including M.C Nos.21/09 and 30/2009 pending before Family Court and consequent to the settlement, first respondent has no grievance against the petitioners and she has no objection for quashing the prosecution.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were Crl.M.C No.3869 of 2010 heard.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that statement of the first respondent recorded subsequently shows that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with the petitioners.

5. As held by the Apex Court in B.S Joshi and others Vs. State Haryana and another (2003 (4) SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably and consequent to the settlement no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution. The affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with first petitioner husband and petitioners 2 to 6 the in laws. Petition is allowed. C.C No.462 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Payyannur is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

ma

 

IPC 498a Quash-Mutual Compromise

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4248 of 2010()

 

1. AYISHABI, D/O.ISMAIYILKUTTY, … Petitioner

2. K.K.HYDER, S/O.ALIKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS,

3. K.K.AHAMEDKUTTY, S/O.ALIKUTTY, AGED

4. ALIKUTTY P. ALIAS KUTTIYIL ALIKUTTY,

5. SHIHAB P., S/O.UMMAR, AGED 33 YEARS,

6. MUHAMMED P., S/O.UMMER, AGED 28 YEARS, Vs

 

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ

For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :19/10/2010

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

————————-

Crl.M.C No.4248 of 2010

————————–

Dated this the 19th October, 2010 O R D E R

First petitioner is the defacto complainant and petitioners 2 to 6 are the accused in C.C No.769 /2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 498A and 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure A1 final report. The prosecution case is that on 24.9.1978, second petitioner married first petitioner. Petitioners 3 to 6 the in-laws along with the husband of the first petitioner, treated her with cruelty and also misappropriated 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to the first petitioner by her parents and also caused hurt and thereby committed offences under Sections 323, 406 and 498A r/w 34 I.P.C. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that as entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

2. First petitioner has filed a separate affidavit Crl.M.C No.4248 of 2010 stating that she has settled all the disputes with the remaining petitioners and therefore the case is to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. The very fact that defacto complainant, wife, joined with the second petitioner husband and petitioners 3 to 6 the other accused, to file this petition to quash the proceedings stating that in view of the settlement, the case is not to be prosecuted establish that entire matrimonial disputes were settled. As held by the Apex Court in B.S Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another [ 2003 (4) SCC 675] when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution standing on technicalities. Petition is allowed. C.C No.769 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

ma

 

IPC 498a Quashed-Mutual Compromise

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4253 of 2010()

 

1. MUHSIN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KARIYANKANDY … Petitioner

2. KARIYANKANDY USSAN, AGED 70 YEARS,

3. FATHIMA, AGED 65 YEARS,

4. FAROOKE, AGED 49 YEARS,

Vs

 

1. RASHIDA, D/O.MAMMED KOYA, AGED 20 YEARS, … Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI For Respondent :SRI.RAJAN KUDUMBATHIL The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :19/10/2010

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

————————-

Crl.M.C No.4253 of 2010

————————–

Dated this the 19th October, 2010 O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused and first respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C No.535/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Koyilandy taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A, and 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 final report submitted in Crime No.118/2010. Crime was registered based on Annexure A1 (a) complaint filed by the first respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Koyilandy and sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were amicably settled with the first respondent wife. Petitioners have also produced Annexure -A2 copy of the agreement evidencing the settlement.

2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the Crl.M.C No.4253 of 2010 settlement, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. As held by the Apex Court in B.S Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another [ 2003 (4) SCC 675] when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably between the husband and wife, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution standing on hyper technique for the reason that offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. Affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C No.535/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Koyilandy is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

ma

 

IPC 498a Quashed-Mutual Compromise

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4295 of 2010()

 

1. MYMOONA.P.K., AGED 25 YEARS, … Petitioner

Vs

 

1. ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 35 YEARS, … Respondent

2. IMBICHIMOYI, AGED 65 YEARS,

3. SAINABA, W/O. IMBICHIMOYI

4. THAHIRA, D/O. IMBICHIMOYI,

5. SHUKOOR, S/O. IMBICHIMOYI, RESIDING

6. BUSHARA, D/O. IMBICHIMOYI,

7. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :22/10/2010

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

=========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4295 OF 2010

=========================== Dated this the 22nd day of October,2010 ORDER

Petitioner the de facto complainant in C.C.390/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thamarasserry taken cognizance for the offences under sections 323, 498A, and 406 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure I final report filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were subsequently settled and consequent to the settlement, she has no subsisting grievance against respondents 1 to 6 the accused and no effective purpose will be served by a full-fledged trial by proceeding with the case, in view of the voluntary settlement and hence it is to be quashed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. As held by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675), when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and proceed with the case. Petitioner is the de facto complainant wife, who filed a private complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamarassery which was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure based on which crime 210/2010 was registered which culminated in submitting Annexure I final report and the cognizance taken. When the wife herself stated that she has settled the matrimonial disputes with her husband and her in-laws, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

Petition is allowed. C.C.390/2010 on the file Crl.M.C.4295/2010 3

of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thamarassery is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006