IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE, 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1930 Crl.MC.No. 942 of 2004 (C) --------------------------------- (CC.558/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM) .................... PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- B.SAJEESH KUMAR, S/O. BALAN NAIR, KODAMBATTIL HOUSE, CHETHUKADAVU P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAYA @ JAYABHARATHI, D/O. UNNI KUMARAN NAIR, PERUMPADAPPIL HOUSE, PERUVAZHI KADAVU P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/6/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 942 of 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.558 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam, seeks an order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A2 charge sheet and all proceedings instituted thereon as C.C.No.558 of 2003. 2. Originally, altogether there were four accused. Against them, the second respondent herein preferred a private complaint which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which Crime No.143 of 1996 was registered in the Kunnamangalam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police, after investigation, filed a final report which is produced along with Crl.M.C. as Annexure A-2 based upon which the court took cognizance and instituted C.C.No.177 of 1997 against the Crl.M.C. NO. 942 of 2004 :-2-: all accused. As per Annexure A3 judgment, the trial court acquitted accused Nos.3 and 4 as the prosecution failed to establish the allegation against the accused. Suffice to say, during the course of the trial, the second accused who is the father of the present petitioner- first accused passed away. As the petitioner was in abroad in connection with his employment, he could not face the trial. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that the entire dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent including the matrimonial dispute has been settled out of court as evidenced by Annexure A4 agreement and therefore, he prays that the proceedings pending against him may be quashed, otherwise it will amount to abuse of process of court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the documents and materials available on record. Going by the records especially Annexure-A3 judgment, it can be seen that a matrimonial dispute was pending between the parties and on merit, the trial Crl.M.C. NO. 942 of 2004 :-3-: court found that accused Nos.3 and 4 are not accused and the prosecution failed to establish the case against them. It is true that the second accused, the father of the petitioner died during the course of trial. Now only the petitioner has to face the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Annexure A4 agreement, the whole dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent has been settled out of court and for giving effect to the agreement, it is absolutely necessary to set aside all proceedings pending against him as an accused in C.C.No.558 of 2003 pending before the court below. In Annexure A4, in para 4, it is stated that the second party therein who is the second respondent herein had agreed to take steps so as to get acquittal of the petitioner herein in C.C.No.558 of 2003, as the second respondent has no further grievance or complaint against the petitioner in the case which was instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent. Going by Annexure A4 agreement, certain other conditions are Crl.M.C. NO. 942 of 2004 :-4-: also incorporated therein which shows that an amicable settlement of the dispute was arrived between the parties. As the trial court had already considered the allegation against accused 3 and 4 and resulted in acquittal of those accused, and as such, the second respondent, the de facto complainant had entered into Annexure A4 agreement with the petitioner herein, I am of the view that there is no scope for a fruitful prosecution and if the proceedings against the petitioner is allowed to continue, that will amount to abuse of process of court. In such circumstances, at this juncture, it is relevant to consider the decision of the Apex Court reported in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryanana (2006(3) KLT 846). In the above decision, the Apex Court had held that it is the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. In the very same decision, the Apex Court had further held that refusal to exercise the inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 is not proper as it may prevent women from settling earlier and that is not the Crl.M.C. NO. 942 of 2004 :-5-: object of Chapter XXA of the Indian Penal Code. It is also held therein that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. or proceedings becomes necessary and Section 320 would not be a bar to exercise the power of quashing. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court reported in Thankamma v. State of Kerala (2006(3) KLT 846), 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 cornerstone of civilisation and to bring peace and happiness in the society. In the said decision, while declining the revisional power of this Court so as to compound an offence punishable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., this Court had held that in appropriate cases, the courts could have exercised its power under Section 482 to save the institution of marriage. 5. In the light of the above decisions and especially in the particular facts and circumstances Crl.M.C. NO. 942 of 2004 :-6-: involved in the case, I am of the view that for the ends of justice, the prayer of the petitioner is to be allowed. Otherwise, if the petitioner is relegated to undergo the ordeal of trial, it will amount to abuse of process of the court, especially when there is no scope for a meaningful prosecution. Therefore, Annexure A1 F.I.R., Annexure A2 charge sheet and C.C.No.558 of 2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam and all further proceedings thereon against the petitioner are quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ Crl.M.C. NO. 942 of 2004 :-7-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Crl.M.C. NO. 942 of 2004 :-8-: DATED: -2-2008 Crl.M.C. NO. 942 of 2004 :-9-: