IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4111 of 2005()
1. ARUN HARI PRASAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SIMON THOMAS, MUKALEL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA,
For Petitioner :SRI.FEBIN J.VELUKARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 4111 of 2005
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime
No.52 of 2004 of the Kottayam West Police Station seeks
an order quashing the charge sheet filed in C.P.No.3 of
2005 and the entire proceedings thereto pending before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam.
2. Though notice was ordered and received by the
second respondent, he had not chosen to appear before
this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
Initially, Crime No.52 of 2004 was registered in the
Kottayam West Police Station under the caption “man
missing” on the basis of the information furnished by the
second respondent regarding the missing of his minor
daughter on 28.1.2004. After registration of the crime,
the Police undertook the investigation and finally traced
out the detenue from Bangalore and produced before the
Magistrate concerned and subsequently produced before
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-2-:
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam.
On finalising the investigation, the Police filed a final
report before the court below. According to the Police,
since the alleged detenue was a minor at the time of the
registration of the crime and on subsequently realising
that the girl was kidnapped by the petitioner, they
incorporated Section 363A of I.P.C. On filing the final
report, the court below took cognisance and instituted
C.P.No.3 of 2005 before it. It is the above committal
proceedings and the final report being challenged and
sought to be quashed.
3. It is stated that while the investigation in
Crime No.52 of 2004 was pending, the second
respondent herein had approached this Court by filing
W.P.(Crl) No.49 of 2004 with a prayer to issue a writ of
habeas corpus directing the Police to produce the so-
called detenue. It is also stated that on 3.9.2004, the
detenue was produced before this Court and on realising
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-3-:
the fact that the detenue went along with the petitioner
out of her volition and free will, this Court allowed the
detenue namely, the daughter of the second respondent
to go along with the petitioner. In support of the above
claims and averments, the petitioner has produced
Annexure-2 order of this Court in W.P.(Crl) No.49 of
2004. On a perusal of Annexure-2 order, it can be seen
that the detenue has stated before the Division Bench of
this Court that the fifth respondent who is the petitioner
herein had married her and she was three months’
pregnant at that time and she had attained the age of
18. It appears that the fifth respondent assured the
court that steps will be taken to conduct the marriage
under the Special Marriage Act. The grievance of the
second respondent in this Crl.M.C., who is the petitioner
in the writ petition, was that the marriage which was
conducted through Arya Samajam was not proper and
hence a proper marriage should be conducted. After
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-4-:
recording all the above, this Court was pleased to
dispose of the writ petition and the girl was set free to
live along with the fifth respondent/petitioner herein or
according to her likes. By producing Annexure A3
marriage certificate issued under the provisions of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954, it is submitted that a
statutory marriage was arranged and now the petitioner
as well as the daughter of the second respondent are
living as man and wife and now they are undergoing a
happy family life and a child is born in their wedlock.
4. On the strength of the above developments
and the factual circumstances involved in the case, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to
be quashed, otherwise it will adversely affect the marital
life of the petitioner as well as the daughter of the
second respondent and the continuation of the criminal
proceedings will amount to abuse of process of the
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-5-:
court. Along with this Crl.M.C., the petitioner has
produced an affidavit of the daughter of the second
respondent viz., Rini Arun. In para 1 of the above
affidavit, it is stated that the allegations contained in the
charge sheet are absolutely baseless and she had
voluntarily gone out according to her own volition and
out of love with an intention to live along with the
petitioner. In para 2 of the affidavit, it is also stated that
she is residing along with petitioner as a legally married
wife and they had a very happy and peaceful married
life. It is also stated that a male child was born in their
wedlock. Therefore, according to the deponent, if the
proceedings in C.P.No.3 of 2004 are allowed to
continue, it will result in irreparable injury and hardship
which will ultimately affect the peaceful family life
which she pursues.
5. Going by the materials available on record
and the factual circumstances involved in the case, it
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-6-:
appears that the dispute between the parties is now at
rest. As stated earlier, initially a crime was registered
for ‘man missing’ and finally, the Police filed a report
alleging offence punishable under Section 363 A of
I.P.C. Considering the subsequent development in the
matter, I am of the view that no purpose will be served if
the proceedings pending before the court below are
allowed to continue. Considering the fact that the
alleged detenue who is the daughter of the de facto
complainant is now residing along with the petitioner as
his legally married wife and a child was born out in their
wed lock, the criminal proceedings if are allowed to
continue, it will likely to adversely affect the marital life
of the petitioner as well as the daughter of the second
respondent. A perusal of Annexure A2 judgment would
show that at that time, the grievance of the second
respondent, the father of the alleged detenue was that
there was no proper marriage. The said grievance is
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-7-:
seen to have redressed as evidenced by Annexure A3
Certificate of Marriage.
6. The Apex Court, in a decision reported in
B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386),
though the case was connected with the matrimonial
offences, it was held that Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure will not stand in the way to exercise
the powers of High Court under Section 482 to give
effect a genuine settlement, and it is the duty of the
court to see that such a genuine settlement is allowed to
materialise. Similarly, in a decision of a Division Bench
of this Court reported in Thankamma v. State of
Kerala (2006(3) KLT 846), though in that case, the
offence involved was Section 498A of the I.P.C., it was
held that for the ends of justice and to save the
institution of marriage, a settlement can be acted upon
and the inherent powers of Section 482 can be invoked
to compound an offence which is otherwise non-
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-8-:
compoundable. Those decisions are to save the
institution of marriage and not to reopen the dispute so
as to disturb the marital bondage. In the light of the
above decision and the factual circumstance involved in
the case, I am of the view that the final report and the
committal proceedings instituted thereon and all further
proceedings thereto can be quashed for the ends of
justice.
In the result, the final report and C.P.No.3 of
2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-III, Kottayam are quashed. The Crl.M.C. is
allowed.
V.K.Mohanan,
Judge
MBS/
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-9-:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
——————————————–
Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200
——————————————–
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-10-:
J U D G M E N T
DATED: -2-2008
Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2005
:-11-: