IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/6TH CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1424 of 2013 () PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1. SURESH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.THULASI RAJAGOPALAN, 'NANDANAM', AMBATTU HOUSE MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. V.T.THULASI RAJAGOPALAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O.(LATE) PKR PANIKKAR, 'NANDANAM' AMBATTU HOUSE, MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VINEETHA, AGED 24 YEARS D/O.K.VALLINAYTHAN @ UNNI, KARINGAPPARA KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676503. R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1424 of 2013 () APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.193/2012 OF TANUR POLICE STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED 22.4.2012. ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SIGNED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.09.2012. ANNEXURE-C: COPY OF OP NO.948/2012 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM U/S 13B OF THE HINDU MARRIAE ACT DATED 28.09.2012. ANNEXURE-D: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.3.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY TKS P.S. TO JUDGE [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER]No.1424 of 2013 Dated 27th March, 2013 ORDER
The Petitioners are son and father and they are arraigned as accused in [CASE NUMBER] of Tanur Police Station in Malappuram District. The delation against the petitioners is one of commission of offences punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The first petitioner and the second respondent are husband and wife. It is essentially the marital discord and disharmony between the first petitioner and the second respondent and joining in the said issue by the second petitioner that constrained the second respondent to file a complaint against them alleging commission of the aforesaid offence.
2. It is submitted that subsequent to the filing of this petition, a joint petition for divorce was filed by the first petitioner and the second respondent under [SECTION] of the [ACT], before the Family Court, Malappuram as [CASE NUMBER]. In the circumstances, the second respondent, with a view to settle in her life wanted to settle the dispute that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime and precisely for that reason that she now, supports the contentions and prayers of the petitioners. Annexure-B is the settlement arrived at between the first petitioner and the second respondent. The second respondent has also filed Annexure-D affidavit in this petition to the effect that the entire disputes that existed between the first petitioner and the second respondent have been settled amicably. It is also stated therein that she did not wish to prosecute the petitioners any further and got no objection in quashing Annexure-A F.I.R. and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent along with Annexure-B settlement entered into between the first petitioner and the second respondent and Annexure-D affidavit filed by the second respondent would reveal that the entire lis between the petitioners and the second respondent have amicably settled. Going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC disinclination to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under [SECTION] in such circumstances would prevent the second respondent wife from settling in her life and in such eventuality, it would definitely defeat the very intent behind the introduction of [SECTION] in the [ACT]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] held that it is virtually the duty of High Courts to prevent continuation of the criminal proceedings that became absolutely unnecessary, in the interest of justice. The facts obtained in this case would undoubtedly show that continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners based on Annexure-A F.I.R. in [CASE NUMBER] of Tanur Police Station in Malappuram District became absolutely unnecessary. The subsequent developments, as mentioned above, would reveal that even if the parties are compelled to continue with the proceedings, the chance for a successful prosecution of the petitioners is very bleak. In the said circumstances, it is only appropriate for this Court to terminate the proceedings now pending against the petitioners based on Annexure-A F.I.R., to secure the ends of justice.
Resultantly, this [CASE NUMBER] is allowed. Annexure-A F.I.R. in [CASE NUMBER] of Tanur Police Station in Malappuram District and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
[ENTITY] Judge TKS