Kerala HC- IPC 498a Quashed-Mutual Compromise (ERNAKULAM)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4034 of 2010()
1. SIVARAJAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR … Petitioner
2. VIKRAMAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR
3. ALBERT JOSE, S/O.DEVARAM
4. BABU, S/O JOHNSON
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS … Respondent
2. LENI MOL, D/O.SUBHASHINI
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :SRI.S.K.VINOD
The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :04/10/2010
O R D E R
——————————————————– CRL.M.C.NOs.4034 & 4035 OF 2010 ——————————————————- Dated 4th October, 2010 O R D E R
Petitioners in Crl.M.C.4034/2010 are accused 1 to 4 in C.C.384/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.4035/2010 are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.525/2008 before the same Court. Petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.M.C.4034/2010 are the same petitioners in Crl.M.C.4035/2010. Third petitioner in Crl.M.C.4035/2010 is the wife of second petitioner therein. Crl.M.C.4035/2010 is filed to quash the cognizance taken in C.C.525/2008 on Annexure-A2 final report for the offences under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Second respondent is the de facto complainant, who is the wife of first petitioner. Second respondent in Crl.M.C.4035/2010 is the same second respondent in Crl.M.C.4034/2010. As is clear from Annexure-A2 final report taken cognizance in C.C.525/2008, the case is that first petitioner husband and second petitioner the brother of first petitioner and third petitioner, the wife of second petitioner, treated second respondent with cruelty. Crime No.26/2008 of Pozhiyoor Police Station was registered under Annexure-A1 FIR based on the complaint filed by the second respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of the petitioner in Crl.M.C.4035/2010 is that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement second respondent has no grievance against the petitioners and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
2. Prosecution case in C.C.384/2008 as is clear from Annexure-A2 final report taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Sections 451, 354, 323 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is that due to enmity with second respondent, who filed a complaint against petitioners 1 and 2 alleging that they along with the wife of second petitioner, committed offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, the four petitioners in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the residential house of the second respondent on 1/5/2008 at about 10 p.m and threatened second respondent that unless she withdraw the case, she will be murdered and will cause hurt to the second respondent and thereby committed the offences. Crl.M.C.4034/2010 is filed contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement second respondent has no grievance against the petitioners and therefore, pending prosecutions are to be quashed.
3. Second respondent appeared in both cases through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled before the Family Court in O.P.1122/2008 and consequent to the settlement, she has no grievance against the petitioners and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the cases pending before the learned Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
5. Affidavit filed by the second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.525/2008 and 384/2008 establish that the offences alleged against the petitioners in C.C.525/2008 are matrimonial offences and offences alleged against the petitioners in C.C.384/2008 are purely personal in nature and all the disputes were settled amicably. As held by the Apex Court inB.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and proceed with the cases and endanger the cordial relationship between the husband and wife and their relatives. Similarly, as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) when the offences alleged against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.4034/2010 are purely personal in nature against second respondent and second respondent has settled the dispute with petitioners, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Petitions are allowed. C.C.384/2008 and 525/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara are quashed.