IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 504 of 2005()
1. SHYLAJA @ GIRIJA,
... Petitioner
2. VIJAYAMMA, D/O.KALYANI,
3. DEEPTHI @ SHIBU, D/O.SHYLAJA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. AJITHA, D/O.SUJATHA,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :13/06/2008
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 504 of 2005 - C
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 to
4 in C.C.No.361 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. In this petition, they
seek an order to quash Annexure-B charge sheet and all
proceedings pending thereon in C.C.No.361 of 2004 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam.
2. The second respondent preferred a private
complaint before the court below which was forwarded
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. On
receiving the complaint in the Kilikolloor Police Station,
they registered a crime (No.479 of 2003) and Annexure-A
is the First Information Report in that crime. After the
investigation, a final report was filed on 22.12.2003 and
Annexure B is the final report. There, the prosecution
case is that the first accused married the second
respondent on 15.12.2002 as per the custom and they
were residing as husband and wife. Thereafter, some
CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005
:-2-:
difference of opinion occurred among them and it is
further alleged that the first accused assaulted her and
the third accused compelled her to dispose of her
property and thereby, all the accused mentally and
physically harassed her and thereby they committed the
offences punishable under Sections 324, 294(b) and 498
(A) read with Section 34 I.P.C. It is the above case now
sought to be quashed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Counsel submits that the first accused had
filed O.P.No.1919 of 2003 before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram for restitution of conjugal rights.
In that petition, a compromise petition was filed which is
marked as Annexure-C. Since the matter has been
compromised, the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram
disposed of the petition as Annexure-D order. In
Annexure-D order, it is stated that the parties are living
together and sworn statements are recorded and the
Original Petition is dismissed.
CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005
:-3-:
5. I have perused the materials available on
record. Going by Annexure-C compromise petition filed
before the Family Court in O.P.No.1919 of 2003, it can
be seen that the parties had decided to settle the
criminal case based upon the crime registered in the
Kilikolloor Police Station for the offence under Section
498A of Cr.P.C. and they also decided to withdraw the
above case. It is also discernible from Annexure-C that
respondents in that petition agreed to withdraw
unconditionally O.S.No.39 of 2004 which was filed in the
Family Court, Kollam against the petitioner and his
sisters. It is also revealed that the parties are agreeable
to the conditions contained in the compromise petition.
On the basis of the above materials, the petitioners
herein pray that the proceedings pending against them
in the court below may be quashed.
6. In the light of the settlement arrived between
the parties to the dispute including the family dispute
and other criminal case, I am of the view that it is the
duty of this Court to give effect and encourage the
CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005
:-4-:
settlement of matrimonial disputes. The Apex Court, in
the decision reported in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana
(AIR 2003 SC 1386), held that Section 320 does not
limit or affect the powers of the High Court to quash the
proceedings under Section 482. In the very same
judgment, the Apex Court had further held that refusal
to exercise inherent powers by High Court is not proper
as it would prevent women from settling earlier and that
is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.
A Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in
Thankamma v. State of Kerala (2006(3) KLT 846) had
held that the courts must see that the power of the court
under Section 482 is not misused. In the above decision,
this Court had further held that when the parties are
seeking to compound the offence under Section 498-A of
the I.P.C., the approach of the court would be to save
the institution of marriage since the sanctity of marriage
is a corner stone of civilization and to bring peace and
happiness in the society. In the present case, as
revealed by the records, the matter has been settled
CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005
:-5-:
between the parties and they have put an end to all
disputes including the disputes which were pending
before the Family Court and also in the criminal court.
If that be so, there is no meaning in directing the
petitioners to undergo the ordeal of trial. In the light of
the settlement of the dispute between the parties, it is
crystal clear that there is no scope for a meaningful
prosecution. On the other hand, if the proceedings are
allowed to continue, that will amount to abuse of process
of the court.
7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and
accordingly, Annexure-B charge and C.C.No.361 of 2004
instituted thereon and all proceedings pending before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam are
quashed.
V.K.Mohanan,
Judge
MBS/
CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005
:-6-:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
——————————————–
Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200
——————————————–
CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005
:-7-:
J U D G M E N T
DATED: -2-2008
CRL.M.C.NO.504 OF 2005
:-8-: