IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 914 of 2009() --------------------------------- CRIME NO.9/2006 OF ELOOR POLICE STATION ................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RASHIK @ ASHIF, S/O.ALIYAR, AGED 24 YEARS, SCOOLPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTAN COLONY, VATTEKKUNNAM, TRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. FRANCIS, S/O.PAPPU, AGED 55 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBUVEETTIL, MANJUMMEL, ELOOR VILLAGE. 3. TREESA FEBI, D/O.FRANCIS, AGED 20 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBUVEETTIL, MANJUMMEL, ELOOR VILLAGE.] PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 914 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.C. 94/2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur. The facts of the case would reveal that the petitioner was charge sheeted for an offence under Section 363 of the IPC. Subsequently it is seen that he had married the girl on 19.8.2007 with whom he is alleged to have eloped and a child is born to them in the wedlock. 2. The husband and wife with the child were present before the court. I ascertained from them regarding their present relationship and it is submitted that they are living happily with the child and there is no necessity for continuation of the case under Section 363 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the light of the decision reported in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] the proceedings have to be quashed. I find that this court had an opportunity to consider a case under Section 363 and Crl.M.C 914/2009 -2- 376 IPC in Crl.M.C 4800/08. The learned Judge of this court in that case considered the entire proceedings in detail and came to the conclusion that the best course that the court can now follow in the interests of justice is to direct quashing of the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the 1st respondent notwithstanding the fact that the admitted facts to point to the commission of an offence. 3. So far as this case is concerned, the offence is less graver and they had eloped which ultimately had ended in union of life between the two and they have well settled now with a young child in the wedlock. I am conscious of the fact that the crime is against the society at large and the court should be very slow when quashing the complaint involving major offence. Though the present complaint is under Section 363 IPC, now the stage is reached where it has ended in marriage and it is the matrimonial relationship that has to be preserved which is also an equal important duty of the court to preserve the welfare of the society. The dictum laid down in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another [2003(4) SCC 675], the Apex Crl.M.C 914/2009 -3- court held that the matrimonial dispute settlement should be encouraged and that hyper technicality should not be allowed to result in counterproductivity. So far as facts and circumstances of this case are concerned, it is true that the girl went away with the boy when she was a minor. Later the girl and boy had been united by the members of the family and they are living under one roof happily with a small child. Suppose now the prosecution is allowed to be continued it will inevitably end in the break of a matrimonial relationship which is to be protected and preserved for the welfare of the society. So when the facts and circumstances are analysed, the most desirable way is to allow the young couple to live happily rather than to fight and separate. I feel it is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C can be invoked. Therefore the Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. 94/2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur is quashed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm