Abdullah vs Hajira

V.K. Mohanan, J.—The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") at the instance of the petitioner, who is accused in L.P. No. 60/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 279/2010 of Valayam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections. 498A, 406, 354 and 511 of 376 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I final report and all further proceedings in L.P. No. 60/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram in Crime No. 279/2010 of Valayam Police Station as the matter is settled out of court.

The allegation in the above case is that on 23.03.2008, the first accused Abdulla married de facto complainant as per religious rites and they were living as husband and wife. While so A1 to A4 at their residence XV/360 of Vanimel Panchayath, mentally and physically ill treated the de facto complainant stating that the gold ornaments given to the de facto complainant at the time of marriage was so less and by demanding more gold and money and also by stating that the first accused would have received the better alliance. The second accused at many occasions caught hold the body of the de facto complainant and ill treated her and on 20.01.2009 night while the de facto complainant and second accused alone were therein the house the second accused caught hold of the de facto complainant and attempted to commit sexual inter course. 46 = sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the de facto complainant at the time of marriage by the family members except 6 sovereigns chain and 2 bangles each of 1 sovereign and 1 stud having 1 sovereign all other gold ornaments were obtained by accused No. 2, 3 and 4 in the guise of keeping that and when the de facto complainant had demanded back that, that has not been returned and they have committed breach of trust and thereby the accused has committed that aforesaid offences, and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance against him.

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 498A, 406, 354 and 511 of 376 r/w 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 1st respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S. 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed..

It is further held as follows:-

"...................But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim................"

According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

In the result, this Crl. M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-I final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in L.P. No. 60/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram in Crime No. 279/2010 of Valayam Police Station.