The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 315/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, alleging offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. First respondent, the de facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. The dispute between the parties was settled before the Mediation Centre of Family Court, Thiruvalla, as evident from Annexure B Memorandum of Agreement and both parties agreed to withdraw all pending cases between them including C.C. No. 315/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. Now the first respondent has also filed Annexure C affidavit before this Court stating the said fact. The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 315/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. 2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor for the second respondent.
3. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108, the Crl.M.C. NO. 2546 of 2014 2 Apex Court held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purpose of quashing, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonial 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 these category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings, if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of a 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 other words, the High Court may consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrong-doer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer Crl.M.C. NO. 2546 of 2014 3 to the above question is in affirmative the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Now as evident from Annexure B Memorandum of Agreement and Annexure C affidavit, the entire disputes between the parties have been settled amicably and the first respondent does not want to prosecute the criminal case filed against the petitioner. The said stand was also taken by the learned counsel for the first respondent. In such circumstances, I find this is a fit case in which the proceedings in C.C. No. 315/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, can be quashed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Sing's case supra.
5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 315/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, is quashed.
DMR/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE