Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No.1213/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. The second accused is no more. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, based on a private complaint filed by the second respondent. Now, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the entire disputes between the first petitioner and the second respondent have already been settled and the second respondent has also sworn an affidavit which is produced along with Crl.M.C. as Annexure 3. Therefore, the prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1213/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. 2. Heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.
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 Crl.M.C. NO. 2466 of 2014 2 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.
Crl.M.C. NO. 2466 of 2014 3
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Now as submitted by both sides, the entire dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent has already been settled amicably and the learned counsel for the second respondent has also stated that the second respondent does not want to prosecute the criminal case filed against the petitioners. In such circumstances, this is a fit case in which the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 1213/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, 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.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1213/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal is quashed.
DMR/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE