Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 393 (KER)

Ganesh Kumar v. Yamini Thankachi

2013-04-12

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

body2013
ORDER : 1. The petitioner and the second respondent are man and wife. It is the strained matrimonial relationship and conflicts between the petitioner and the second respondent that paved the way for the alleged incident of manhandling and made the petitioner to lodge a complaint against the second respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Based on the complaint of the petitioner Crime No.421/2013 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram was registered and Annexure-I is the FIR registered in that crime. 2. This petition is filed seeking quashment of all further proceedings in Crime No.421/2013 of Musuem Police Stations on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the parties as is obvious from Annexure-II affidavit sworn in by the petitioner. Normally, this Court will not entertain the petition filed by a person who set the law in motion by causing registration of a crime, to quash the proceedings instituted by him/her by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, the position is different when it pertains to a matrimonial dispute. In the petition as also the Annexure-II affidavit the petitioner/the de facto complainant stated to the effect that the entire disputes which led to the unfortunate incident that constrained him to lodge the complaint against his wife, the second respondent causing registration of the aforesaid crime, have been settled amicably. Evidently, the second respondent herein had lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the same police station and on its basis Crime No. 422/2013 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The pleadings would reveal that the disputes involved in both the crimes viz., Crime Nos.421/2013 and 422/2013, of Museum Police Station, have been settled amicably between the parties at the behest of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and also the timely interference of the elders in the family and some respectable personalities. The pleadings would reveal that the disputes involved in both the crimes viz., Crime Nos.421/2013 and 422/2013, of Museum Police Station, have been settled amicably between the parties at the behest of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and also the timely interference of the elders in the family and some respectable personalities. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that a settlement was arrived at between the parties to compromise and settle the disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crimes as they realised that continuation of criminal proceedings based on the aforesaid crimes would spoil not only their lives but the lives of the two children born in their wedlock, as well. Indisputably, it is the matrimonial disharmony and discord that caused the alleged unfortunate incident and now, with a view to settle in their lives the petitioner and also the second respondent have settled their entire lis that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime. The petition is moved in the aforesaid circumstances especially because of the involvement of the accusation of commission of non-compoundable offence. 3. In the factual position obtained in this case it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in 2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC) going by the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the mere inclusion of a non-compoundable offence in the charge and also the provisions under Section 320, Cr.P.C. would not and could not limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. if the case concerned is otherwise a fit case for its invocation. In the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court virtually held that it is the duty of the High Courts to prevent the continuation of criminal proceedings which became absolutely unnecessary, in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and also the Public Prosecutor. 5. In the circumstances expatiated above it is evident that the case involved is purely personal and private in nature and the affidavit sworn in by the second respondent would reveal that the entire lis has been settled amicably. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and also the Public Prosecutor. 5. In the circumstances expatiated above it is evident that the case involved is purely personal and private in nature and the affidavit sworn in by the second respondent would reveal that the entire lis has been settled amicably. In the circumstances, there is no chance for a successful prosecution against the second respondent even if the criminal proceedings are compelled to be continued. That apart, such continuation might in all probability result only in sheer wasting of the invaluable time of the court. The fact that the petitioner and the second respondent got two children in their wedlock also persuaded me to form the opinion that interest of justice demands prevention of continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) and Gian Singh’s case (supra) and the factual position obtained in this case would justify invocation of the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to terminate the proceedings against the second respondent, to secure the ends of justice. In the circumstances this Criminal M.C. is allowed. Annexure-I FIR laid in Crime No. 421/2013 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvanathapuram and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner second respondent are hereby quashed.