IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAX, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 2176 of 2018
CC NO.409/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
CRIME NO. 1075/2016 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
1 ARUN HARSHAN,
S/O.E.K.HARSHAKUMAR, CHANDRA VILASAM(H)
AITHOTTUVA, WEST KALLADA P.O., KOLLAM.
W/O.E.K.HARSHAKUMAR, CHANDRA VILASAM(H,
AITHOTTUVA, WEST KALLADA P.O. , KOLLAM.
3 ARYA HARSHAN,
D/O.E.K.HARSHAKUMAR, CHANDRA VILASAM(H),
AITHOTTUVA, WEST KALLADA P.O., KOLLAM.
SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
(THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT).
2 SONA SOMRN,
AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.SOMAN, KANNAMKARA
THOTTATHIL(H),VENDAR, PUTHOOR P.O.,
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M KAMAPPU
R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 2176 of 2018 2
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for brevity) with a prayer to
quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners.
2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1St petitioner. The
2nd petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd
petitioner is the sister of 1St petitioner. The marriage between
the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on
03.02.2016. In the course of their connubial relationship,
serious disputes cropped up. The 2nd respondent specifically
alleged that the petitioners are guilty of culpable matrimonial
cruelty. This finally led to the institution of criminal proceedings
at the instance of the 2nd respondent. Annexure-AZ FIR was
registered and after investigation, Annexure–A3 final report was
laid before the learned Magistrate and the case is now pending
as C.C.No.409 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara. In the aforesaid case, the
petitioners are accused of having committed offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Cr1.MC.No. 2176 of 2018 3
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that at the instance of well wishers and family
members, the parties have decided to put an end to their
discord and have decided to live in peace. It is urged that the
dispute is purely private in nature. The learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent invited the attention of this
Court to the affidavit filed by her and asserts that the disputes
inter se have been settled and the continuance of criminal
proceedings will only result in gross inconvenience and hardship.
It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has no objection in
allowing the prayer sought for.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions,
has submitted that the statement of the 2nd respondent has
been recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the
settlement arrived at is genuine.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC
303] and in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC
Crl.MC.No. 2176 of 2018 4
466], the Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases,
the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of
disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to
the criminal proceedings. Further in Jitendra Raghuvanshi
Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi Another [(2013) 4 SCC 58]
it was observed that it is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. If the parties
ponder over their faults and terminate their disputes amicably
by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law,
the courts should not hesitate to exercise its powers under
Section 482 of the Code. Permitting such proceedings to
continue would be nothing, but an abuse of process of court.
The interest of justice also require that the proceedings be
7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am
of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in
invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code
to quash the proceedings.
MC.No. 2176 of 2018
In the result, this petition will stand allowed.
Annexure-A3 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto
against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.409 of 2017 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Kottarakkara are quashed. The compromise agreement entered
into between the parties in Crl.M.C.No.2176 of 2018 will form
part of the of this order.
RAJA VIJAYARAG HAVAN V
//T rue Copy/l P.A.To Judge
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
Arun Harshan 85 Ors. : Petitioners
Sona Soman : 2nd Respondent
The Compromise agreement entered into between the petitiOnerS and
– The 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent were husband and Wife. The
2ncl petitioner was the mother–in–law of the 2nd respondent and the 3rd
petitioner was the sister–in-law of the 2nd respondent. The marriage
between the 1St petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on
03.02.2016. The 1st petitioner and 2m1 respondent are thereafter
residing separately from 27–2–16 and due to marital disputes, the 2nd
respondent had filed cases in Family Court Kollam and there are case
and counter case before the Magistrate Court at. Kottarakkara and
Sasthamkotta. Now when the matters are challenged before this
‘Hon’ble Court, the parties are agreed to settle the entire disputes when
referred for mediation on the following terms and conditions.
1. That the 2nd respondent has already been granted ex–parte
divorce in OP No. 391/2017 by the Family Court Kollam 5–9–
18. the 1St petitioner has full knowledge about the same and
he hereby undertakes that he shall not take any steps to Set
aside the decree in OP No. 391/2017 nor prefer an appeal
against the same. The Decree for divorce shall be binding on
– both the 1St petitioner and 2’101 respondent. The 2nd respondent
withdraws all the personal allegation raised against the
petitioners in GP 391/17 before the family court Kollam in
the light of this mediation agreement.
2.That the 2nd respondent undertakes to Withdraw OP No. 1014/ 16
filed by her before the Family Court, Kollam for return of money
and gold ornaments. The 21101 respondent shall not prosecute the
O.P1014/ 16 any further on execution of this agreement and the
2nd respondent shall file this agreement copy before the family
court Kollam in O.P 1014 / 16 along with the Withdrawal memo.
3.That the 2nd respondent undertakes that she shall file an
affidavit in Crl.M.C. No. 2176/2018 befbre the Hon’ble High
Court stating that the entire matters have been settled so as to
enable the respondent to get the charge sheet in CC.
No.409/2017 pending before the JFCM Court ~II Kottarakara,
quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
4.That the 3rd petitioner (Arya Harshan) shall file an afﬁdavit in
Crl.M.C. 3656/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court stating that
the entire matters have been settled so as to enable the petitioner
in Crl.M.C. 3656/2018 to get the charge sheet in QC.
No.176/ 2018 pending before the Court of Temporary Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta quashed by the
Hon’ble High Court.
5.The 2nd respondent shall not oppose the grant of relief in favour
of the 1st Petitioner in WP (c) 41968 / 17 and shall also not do any
act for cancellation or impounding of passport in future. The 15t
petitioner shall also take steps to delete the name of the 2nd
respondent from his passport in the column ‘spouse’.
6. Both the petitioners and 2nd respondent submit that there are no
further claims against each/other arising out of marital bond. /
The petitioners and 2nd respondent agree that they have understood
the terms of the compromise and have been duly made to understand
the contents and consequences of the agreement before signing the
agreement. There has been no coercion on either of the petitioners or
the 2nd respondent in signing the above agreement.
Dated this the 28th day of September 2018
1st WM %o’7i ll’iow’
2nd [email protected]
Cou sel for the petitioners Counsel for the 2nd respondent
ENQU’; % D . ‘
ficjrirqiémi- u w ‘
2176 of 2018 6
TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
27.7.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS
MAGISTRATE’S COURT NO.II, KOTTARAKKARA AS
TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 01.08.2016 IN
CRIME NO.1075/2016 OF PUTHOOR POLICE
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.409/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL
1$T CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.II,
ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DTD.06.11.2018
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.