M.V. Anilkumar vs State of Kerala and P.M. Divya

P. Bhavadasan, J.—The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 185 of 2008 of Nileswaram Police Station who is alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC. After investigation, final report was filed before the court concerned. Cognizance of the offence was taken and finding that the offence are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and the learned Magistrate have committed the case to Sessions Court, Kasaragod for trial and disposal. The said court made over the case to Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod, where it is pending as S.C. No. 226/2009. The victim, who is also the defacto complainant in this case has appeared through a counsel before this Court and filed an affidavit which forms part of the record. In the affidavit, it is stated that the matter has settled out of court and the complainant has no further grievances as against the accused. It is also pointed out by her that she had got married to another person and also delivered a child. It is extremely embarrassing for her to appear before the court and to give evidence in the matter which may make her matrimonial life miserable. The defacto complainant points out that she is not interested in continuing with the case. It is also asserted that she has no complaint against the accused.

This Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, normally cannot do a thing which is prohibited by the code. The offence u/s 376 is not compoundable. Then the question is whether exercising its powers u/s 482, proceedings can be quashed.

Considerable aid in this regard can be obtained by a decision reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , wherein the Apex Court had considered Sections 320 and 482 and the scope and the ambit of those provisions. The Apex Court had occasion to hold that Section 320 is exhaustive and does not admit of any exception. But the Apex Court went on to hold that in certain cases where the matter is not covered by Section 320 wherein the parties have settled their disputes outside the court and the complainant or the victim is not interested in proceeding with the matter and wants to give a quietus to the dispute between the victim and the accused, the court may in appropriate cases exercise its powers u/s 482 and quash the proceedings. But the Apex Court has cautious that this is an exceptional power to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. The Apex Court has also pointed out that in certain circumstances like Sections 302, 376 etc., it may not be appropriate for the court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 482. But the Apex Court has also added that each case should be considered on its merits and facts disclosed in that case. Strictly speaking the case on hand falls under the prohibited category laid down by the Apex Court. But the affidavit filed by the victim who is also the complainant shows that she is happily married and she is leading a peaceful matrimonial life and she has given birth to a child. She therefore feels that she does not want to create an issue and cause threat to her matrimonial life. She therefore wants to bury the issue and does not intend to proceed with the matter.

Considering the above facts and considering the necessity to preserve a matrimonial and family life of the petitioner as well as the victim, it is felt that it is only appropriate for this Court to exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 in the instant case and provides relief to the petitioner as well as the victim.

Under the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The final report shall stand quashed. All further proceedings in S.C. No. 226/2009 shall stand dropped and the accused shall stand discharged.