Kerala High Court
Anoop vs State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2025
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 888 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1003/2019 OF Kunnicode Police Station, Kollam
CC NO.293 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I, PATHANAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 ANOOP, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O JAYACHANDRAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA (H), PATTAZHI P.O,
ERATHU NORTH, PATTAZHI VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691556
2 JAYACHANDRAN NAIR
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O ACHUTHAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA (H), PATTAZHI P.O,
ERATHU NORTH, PATTAZHI VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691556
3 INDIRA NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS
W/O JAYACHANDRAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA (H), PATTAZHI P.O,
ERATHU NORTH, PATTAZHI VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691556
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SMT. AASHI K. SHAJAN
SMT.MINZA FATHIMA SALIM M.
SMT.BINITHA MARIA THOMAS
SHRI.KEZIL THOTTUKADAVIL CHERIAN
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 2
RESPONDENTS/STATE.I.O & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691508
3 ANJALI, AGED 34 YEARS
D/O SREEDEVI AMMA, AMBADI SADANAM, VETTIKAVALA P.O,
NADUKKUNNU MURI, MELILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 691538
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JERRY MATHEW
SHRI.TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
SMT.DEVIKA K.R.
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.06.2025, THE COURT ON 27.06.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 3
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.293/2020 on
the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanapuram.
The offence alleged against them are under sections 323 and 498A
I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that the first petitioner who is the
husband of the de facto complainant, and the petitioners 2 and 3 who
are his parents, have been subjecting the de facto complainant to
matrimonial cruelty demanding more dowry from 03.02.2018
onwards. The case has been registered by the Kunnikode Police on
09.07.2019 as per the directions of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-III, Punalur under section 156(3) Cr.P.C upon a complaint
preferred by the de facto complainant. After the completion of the
investigation, the S.I of Police, Kunnikode laid the final report before
the court.
3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that
they are totally innocent, and that a false and baseless case has been
foisted against them. It is further stated that the issues between the
petitioners and the de facto complainant have been amicably settled
in mediation and an agreement dated 05.10.2021 for winding up all
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 4
the pending litigations between them has been executed. According
to the petitioners, the de facto complainant had agreed to file the
affidavit required for the quashment of this case as one of the
conditions of the said agreement. The original affidavit sworn by the
de facto complainant in accordance with the aforesaid condition of the
mediation agreement is produced as Annexure-A5. For the above
reasons, the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings against them.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel for the de facto complainant/third respondent and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. As already stated above, Annexure-A5 is the original
affidavit sworn by the de facto complainant/3rd respondent stating
that the disputes which existed between her and the petitioners have
been settled and compromised and that she has no objection in
recording the above settlement and quashing all further proceedings
in the final report filed in Crime No.1003/2019 of Kunnikode Police
Station which is now pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Pathanapuram as C.C.No.293/2020. The above affidavit
has been sworn and signed by the de facto complainant on
14.12.2021. Annexure-A7 order of the Family Court, Kottarakkara
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 5
dated 16.12.2021 in O.P(HMA) No.552/2021 would reveal that the
marriage between the de facto complainant and the first petitioner
was dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent, pursuant to
the above compromise between the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant
submitted that the de facto complainant is not amenable for the
termination of prosecution proceedings as prayed for in this petition
since the first petitioner has not honoured the terms and conditions of
the Memorandum of Agreement of mediation to the full extent. It is
pointed out by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that
the first condition of Annexure-A3 Memorandum of Agreement of
mediation requiring the petitioners to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the de
facto complainant has not been complied by them. For the above
reason, according to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant
has withdrawn her consent for the compromise of the criminal case
against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
the de facto complainant has given statement to the Investigating
Officer also that she is now not amenable for the settlement of the
pending criminal case against the petitioners.
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 6
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
contention of the de facto complainant about the non-fulfilment of the
first condition of Annexure-A3 Memorandum of Agreement is utter
falsehood, and that the attempt of the de facto complainant is to try
whether further money could be extracted from the petitioners by
putting them to pressure and humiliation, taking advantage of the
delay which occasioned in moving the present petition to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the Family Court, Kottarakkara
passed Annexure-A7 order of divorce on mutual consent after having
been fully satisfied about the fulfilment of the terms and conditions of
Annexure-A3 Memorandum of Agreement signed by the parties.
8. It is pertinent to note that condition No.6 of Annexure-A3
is that the first petitioner had to hand over the amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- agreed to be paid to the de facto complainant, and the
FD receipt for Rs.4,00,000/- agreed to be deposited in the name of
the child, on the date when the first petitioner and the de facto
complainant are to give statement before the Family Court,
Kottarakkara in the joint petition filed for divorce by mutual consent.
Condition No.10 of Annexure-A3 is that the vakalath and affidavit of
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 7
the de facto complainant for quashing C.C.No.293/2020 pending
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanapuram would
be handed over to the first petitioner on the date when they are to
give statement before the Family Court in the joint petition for
divorce. Indisputably, the joint statement referred above had been
given by the de facto complainant and the first petitioner leading to
Annexure-A7 order of the Family Court which was the outcome of the
terms of agreement between the parties in the mediation conducted,
as referred by that court. Now that, the de facto complainant cannot
turn round and say that there was violation of the terms and
conditions of Annexure-A3 agreement and hence she is not amenable
for the termination of the prosecution proceedings against the
petitioners.
9. In Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and
Others [2005 KHC 469 : (2005) 3 SCC 299], the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the conduct of the wife retracting from the agreement
to terminate the criminal proceedings against her husband and others
after obtaining a divorce on the basis of the compromise arrived on
such terms including the withdrawal of the criminal case, would
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 8
amount to abuse of process of court. Paragraph Nos.6 and 9 of the
aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder:
6. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that in the
compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the
appellant admitted that she has received stridhan and
maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled to
maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to
withdraw all proceedings, civil and criminal, filed and initiated
by her against the respondents within one month of the
compromise deed, which included the complaint under
S.498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under S.3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the
said compromise, the respondent husband agreed to withdraw
his petition filed under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending
before the Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also
agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the
appellant.
xxxxxxxx
9 In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and the conduct
of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the
court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises
is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this
appeal also quash the proceedings arising from criminal case
Cr. No. 224 of 2003 registered in Police Station Bilaspur
(District Rampur) filed under S.498A, 323 and 506 IPC and
under S.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is
disposed of."
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 9
10. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in
Mohd. Shamim and Others v. Nahid Begum and Another
[2005 KHC 470 : (2005) 3 SCC 302].
11. In a similar instance, a learned Single Judge of this Court
has held in Thomas and Another v. State of Kerala and Another
[2016 KHC 206] that when a settlement has been arrived at
between the parties and the consequent award passed by the Lok
Adalat has come into effect, and a substantial portion of it has been
complied with, one of the parties to such agreement cannot be
permitted to backtrack from the settlement and to proceed with the
prosecution against her counterparts.
12. The present case is a typical example where the third
respondent is trying to exploit the situation which arose out of the
belated filing of this petition by the petitioners for quashment of the
proceedings against them. Had the petition been filed immediately
after 14.12.2021 when the de facto complainant had sworn
Annexure-A5 affidavit, the prosecution against the petitioners would
have been terminated in the year 2021 itself. Now that, when the
petition happened to be filed after four years, the de facto
complainant had changed her stand obviously to try whether the
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 10
petitioners could be put to pressure to make payment of further
amount beyond the scope of Annexure-A3 agreement. This Court
cannot give its stamp of approval to such unethical conduct of
litigants. Needless to say that the prayer in this petition to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners, has to be allowed.
In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.293/2020 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanapuram
arising out of Crime No.1003/2019 of Kunnikode Police Station, are
hereby quashed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
2025:KER:46203
Crl.M.C.No.888/2025 11
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1003/2019 OF KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1003/2019 OF KUNNIKODE POLICE
STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING
AS C.C NO.293/2020 ON THE FILES OF JFMC,
PATHANAPURAM
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DATED 05.10.2021 ENTERED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 AND THE 3RD
RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.12.2021
ISSUED BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT TO THE
PETITIONER NO.1/ACCUSED NO.1
Annexure A5 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
14.12.2021 SWORN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT
Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
16.06.2023 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.2
BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTARAKARA
ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT VIDE NO.36/23/PTN/KTR
DATED 17.06.2023 AND ITS TYPED COPY
Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.12.2021 IN O.P(HMA) NO.552/2021 ON THE
FILES OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKARA
