This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C.No.1090/2013 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Originally this petition was filed to quash the proceedings alleging that no ingredients were mentioned in the complaint so as to attract the offence under 498A of Indian Penal Code. It is mentioned in the petition that first respondent who is the complainant in the case is the wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 07.09.2008 at St.Mary's Church, Kandanad and a female child was born to them in their wedlock. Thereafter, there were some differences of opinion arose between them and first respondent filed M.C.No.162/2013 before the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child and also filed O.P.No.991/2013 seeking a decree for divorce and O.P.No.958/2013 before the same court against the petitioner and his parents for recovery of money and gold ornaments or its value. Besides those litigations, she filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery against the petitioner alleging offences under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and after enquiry, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the case as C.C.No.1090/2013 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the petitioner, that was originally challenged by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
“To quash all proceedings in CC No.1090/2013 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery in the interest of justice.”
3. First respondent appeared before this court through Counsel and on the basis of the submissions made by both the Counsels and also considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute and several litigations are pending between he parties before the Family Court and the Criminal Court, this court felt that this can be sent for mediation and accordingly, both parties were directed to appear before this court. Pursuant to the same, they appeared and the matter was referred for mediation and in mediation, the matter has been settled amicably and parties have decided to withdraw all the litigations pending before the courts including this criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the first respondent filed an affidavit before this court stating these facts expressing her willingness to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at in the mediation.
4. Heard both sides.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife and due to difference of opinion between them, several litigations have been initiated at the instance of the first respondent before the Family Court and also a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery which resulted in taking cognizance by the magistrate as C.C.No.1090/2013 against the petitioner under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. In the mediation, the matter has been settled and parties have decided to separate by filing a joint petition for divorce and also decided to settle all the claims pending before the Family Court and also to withdraw this case.
6. Further, in the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab 2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), it is held as follows:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 case, 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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
7. Since it is a family dispute and all the issues in respect of the matrimonial conflict between the petitioner and respondent have been settled in the mediation conducted in Ernakulam Mediation Centre and they have arrived at an agreement to settle all the issues and withdraw all the cases including the criminal case on certain terms and the settlement will promote harmony, happiness and peace in their future life, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings so as to promote the settlement arrived at between the parties in the mediation and to secure a safety and happy life in their future.
So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.1090/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery as against the petitioner is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge