The above captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.), seeking the invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash Annexure A final report (arising out of Crime No.73 of 2012 of Poonthura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district) now pending as S.C No.215 of 2013 on the file of the 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner and the second respondent were in love for quite some time and they developed the relationship when the second respondent usually travelled in the bus of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C), wherein the petitioner was employed as conductor. According to the 2nd respondent, when the petitioner had promised to marry her, she allowed the maintenance of sexual relationship with him on many occasions from 2009 onwards and that when the petitioner retracted from his promise, the 2nd respondent submitted a First Information Statement alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, which led to the registration of Crime No.73 of 2012 of Poonthura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
3. After completion of the investigation, impugned Annexure A final report was filed, which led to the institution of S.C No.215 of 2013 on the file of the 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Later, on the intervention of relatives, the dispute between the petitioner and 2nd respondent was settled and the petitioner married the 2nd respondent on 03.03.2013 at Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Thodupuzha as evidenced by Annexure B marriage certificate dated 07.03.2013 issued by the temple trust. Annexure C is the certificate dated 15.04.2013 which shows the registration of the marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008. The 2nd respondent has sworn to an affidavit dated 11.10.2014 produced as Annexure D in this Crl.M.C stating that she was in love with the petitioner and that she had involved in sexual relationship with the petitioner as he had told her that he would marry her. But, later, when the petitioner retracted from such promise, she was constrained to give the FIS which led to the registration of the instant crime No. 73 of 2012 of Poonthura Police Station for offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. That it is only due to misunderstanding and influence of others that she had given the statement to the police and that later, the relatives have intervened and resolved her issues with the petitioner and that on 03.03.2013, she had married the petitioner in the Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Thodupuzha in accordance with the religious and community rites and ceremonies and that the marriage has been registered as per Rules and that they are living together as husband and wife. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent in Annexure D that any further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings before the 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram will detrimentally affect her matrimonial life and future life and that the impugned proceedings in S.C No.215 of 2013 on the file of the aforementioned court below may be quashed by this Court and that this has been sworn to by her keeping in view her welfare and better future and accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned proceedings in S.C No.215 of 2013 pending before the court below may be quashed by this Court.
4. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.Ashok Suresh has taken notice for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent -State of Kerala.
5. Heard Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Ashok Suresh, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
6. Sri.Ashok Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and that whatever is stated by her in Annexure D affidavit are truthful and correct and that the marriage between the parties was conducted on 03.03.2013 in the Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Thodupuzha as stated above and that any further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings before the court below would adversely affect her matrimonial life and future and that the 2nd respondent is now living happily with the petitioner and it is only in her on interest for her better future the impugned proceedings pending before the court below may be quashed by this Court. Otherwise, there will be disharmony in the matrimonial life and it will be very painful for her to continue with the impugned proceedings, which was initiated by her against the petitioner, who is now her husband. Accordingly, Sri.Ashok Suresh, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, would submit that she will not raise any dispute or complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the case have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard.
9. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]:
“61. 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. ”
In the decision reported in the case Yogendra Yadav & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows:
“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”.
The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
10. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is convinced as the 2nd respondent has married the petitioner and as her main complaint and grouse against the petitioner which led to the registration of the instant crime was due to her insistence that she should marry the petitioner and as both of them are living as husband and wife under the same roof in harmony, it will not be proper to refuse the prayer made by both parties for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings in the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of this case otherwise it will amount to creating disharmony in the matrimonial life of the 2nd respondent who was all along insisting that she should get married to the petitioner at any cost and her main grouse was that the petitioner was not prepared to marry her. Social interest and public interest would also to subserved by the peace and harmony that is now restored between the parties through the solemnization of marriage and as both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are now living together as husband and wife, it is more convincing in the interest of matrimonial life for the wife that the matter is quashed so that it does not obstruct, disharmonize the matrimonial relationship. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure A final report in Crime No.73 of 2012 of Poonthura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district, which has led to the institution of S.C No.215 of 2013 on the file of the 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Poonthura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
vdv