-------- This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station of Kasaragod District to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition petitioners were arrayed as accused in Crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station of Kasaragod District on the basis of statement given by the first respondent as defacto complainant alleging offences under Sections 379, 447, 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the complaint given by the second petitioner, another crime was registered as crime No.898 of 2013 of the same police station against the first respondent alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Now due to the intervention of relatives and well wishers, matters have been settled between the parties. They have no grievance against each other now. Crime No.898 of 2013 of Chandera police station was quashed by this Court as per order in Crl.M.C.No.1945 of 2014 on the basis of the settlement. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case also. Since it is a crime stage and the some of the offences are non compoundable in nature neither the police nor the Court will drop the further proceedings. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
to quash Annexure AII F.I.R in Crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station, Kasaragod District.
3. First respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled and they have no grievance against each other and their dispute has been settled through mediation and he had filed Annexure-A4 affidavit stating these facts. Connected crime was also quashed by this Court on the basis of settlement.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction. Further on account of the settlement, second petitioner and first respondent have decided to live together as well. So he prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other crime between the parties but opposed the application on the ground that it is in the crime stage.
6. It is an admitted fact that the present crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station was registered on the basis of Annexure-A1 private complaint filed by the first respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Hosdurg which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code and on receipt the same, the present Annexure-A2 First Information Report was registered. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second petitioner herein against the first petitioner and her relatives which was also forwarded to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after receipt of the complaint crime No.898 of 2013 of Chandera police station was registration alleging offences under Section 498A and r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that the second petitioner and the first respondent are wife and husband. On account of the settlement, they have now decided to reside together. The matrimonial disputes between the parties as resulted in the registration of crime. It is also seen from the documents produced namely Annexure-A3 that the accused in crime No.898 of 2013 of Chandera police station had filed Crl.M.C.1945 of 2014 for quashing the proceedings and the same was allowed by this Court on the basis of settlement between the parties. Considering the fact the matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto complainant and the second petitioner have decided to live together and now living together as husband and wife now, there is no possibility of these parties co-operating with the investigation and even if ultimately final report is filed, conviction in such cases will be remote. Since it is a family dispute which resulted in the registration of crime and it has been settled between the parties and now they are residing together harmoniously, the Court must give effect to the settlement and promote the harmony that has been restored between the parties especially husband and wife have decided to live together and in such cases pendency of criminal cases should not be a bar for their relationship to continue
7. It is also 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.”
8. In view of the dictum laid on in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a family dispute which resulted in registration of crimes and the matter has been settled between the parties and one of the crime was quashed by this Court on account of the settlement and no possibility of conviction in view of the settlement, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the harmony that has been restored in the family and reunion has been happened between husband and wife and the pendency of this case should not be hurdle for the same.
So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.79 of 2014 of Chandera police station of Kasaragod District against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Hosdurg and to inform the same to the concerned police station for necessary further action in this regard.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV