R.JAYACHANDRAN vs STATE OF KERALA & ANR

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the accused in C.C. No.168/2009 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram for offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The petitioner had married the 2nd respondent. They were living together as husband and wife. A child

was born in the matrimonial relationship. It was alleged that the husband abandoned her on 10.04.2002. It is alleged that during their matrimonial

relationship, the 2nd respondent herein was physically and mentally harassed by the husband and his relatives. She filed a detailed complaint

alleging various acts of violence, which essentially includes physical harassment. Pursuant to this complaint, Annexure A2 FIR was registered as

Crime No.167/2003. After investigation, Annexure A3 final report was filed on 30.01.2004 arraying the petitioner herein alone as the accused. All

other relatives were excluded. The final report to the extent of deleting the remaining accused was challenged by the 2nd respondent, which was

dismissed by the court below by Annexure A4 order. This is stated to be under challenge and pending before this Court.

The petitioner has approached this Court contending that the entire disputes between the parties have been settled and divorce by mutual

consent was obtained. Thereafter, the parties have remarried, it is submitted at the time of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that even though specific allegations of physical cruelty were attributed, this is not supported by any documentary evidence. It was

stated that the allegation is sought to be established through the oral testimony of the 2nd respondent alone. It was further contended that all the

disputes between the parties were settled and by Annexure A5 application the number of cases proposed to be settled were disclosed. It is true

that the present case was not a subject matter, since at that point of time, the investigation had just been completed. According to the learned

counsel, the intention of the parties is to have a quietus to the entire disputes and to enable the parties to lead separate life.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that she was subjected to extreme cruelty and hence the prosecution shall continue. On the

other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was prosecuted and had to bear the agony for a long period of 14

years after the marriage being legally dissolved pursuant to a compromise. It is unfair on the part of the 2nd respondent to prosecute him even at

this stage, it was contended. It was further contended that no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein except to satisfy the ego

of the 2nd respondent.

It appears from the entire records that the matrimonial disputes were settled. Consequently, divorce was granted. The parties are living

separately and are leading independent life. From the nature of Annexure A4 application, it appears that the parties wanted to give a quietus to the

entire disputes. However, for reasons known to both sides, the present case was not incorporated. It cannot be straight away said that it was a

voluntary act of omitting the present case. That doesn''t mean that the parties intended to proceed with the case also. As submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the accused especially when there is no reliable convincing evidence regarding

physical harassment.

Having considered these facts, I am inclined to hold that continuance of the criminal proceedings cannot be in the interest of justice and the criminal

proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.168/2009 of Chief Judicial Magistrate

Court, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioner herein stands quashed.