Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.224/13 of Kurathikadu Police Station, which is initiated at the instance of the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners submit that the entire disputes between the first petitioner and the second respondent have already been settled and they have decided to file a petition for divorce on mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The second respondent has also filed Annexure 2 affidavit before this Court stating that the entire dispute has been settled amicably and she does not want to prosecute the complaint made against the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Crime No.224/13 on the file of the Kurathikadu Police Station. 2. Heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the second respondent has already settled the matter with the first petitioner and she does not want to prosecute the complaint made against the petitioners.
3. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108, the 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 to the above question is in affirmative the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
4. The allegation made against petitioners is for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, the second respondent has filed Annexure 2 affidavit before this Court stating that the entire dispute has been amicably settled and she does not want to prosecute the matter further. In such circumstances, this is a fit case in which the proceedings in Crime No. 224/13 of the Kurathikadu Police Station can be quashed by this Court invoking the powers 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 the entire proceedings in Crime No. 224/13 of the Kurathikadu Police Station is quashed.
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE DMR/-