The judgment established the principle that the court has the authority to quash a proceeding if it is manifestly attended with mala-fide and instituted with ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance after settling all disputes.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The 1st petitioner herein is the son of petitioners 2 and 3. They are the accused in C.C. No. 1453 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Cherthala. In the aforesaid case, they face indictment under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. On 18.01.2018, she filed a complaint before the District Police Chief, levelling allegations of physical and mental abuse against the petitioners and she sought for initiation of criminal action. Crime No. 82 of 2016 was registered at the Aroor Police Station under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. This culminated in the filing of a final report before the court below. Cognizance was taken and the case is now pending as C.C. No. 1453 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Cherthala.

4. The eventful backdrop as is revealed from the prosecution records shows that the 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent on 30.4.2017 and they lived together in the matrimonial home of the petitioners at Eramallor. Huge sums of money by way of cash and gold ornaments were allegedly entrusted with the petitioners. The spouses were well qualified. Immediately after marriage, the petitioners raised demand for dowry and when the same was not handed over, the 2nd respondent was subjected to ill treatment. Though she became pregnant, no consideration for the same was given to her. She delivered a child on 18.10.2008. Fed up with the harassment and left with no alternative, the parents of the 2nd respondent took her back to her parental home in the month of July, 2009 and she stayed with them for about a year. Later, a settlement was arrived at and she went back with the petitioners. However, they continued with their ill treatment. As the respondent was unable to withstand the inhuman behaviour of the petitioners, she left the matrimonial home on 12.10.2013. She alleges that the gold ornaments, certificates etc. are still retained with the petitioners. Thereafter, at the instance of the mediators, the parties decided to file a joint petition for divorce. The 1st petitioner agreed to hand over the custody of the child to the respondent and to return the valuables. Though a petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed, due to technical reasons, the same was dismissed. Thereafter, she filed a petition seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Thrissur. The 1st petitioner, as a counterblast, filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking permanent custody of the minor child. Under the pressure exerted by the father of the 2nd respondent, she entered into a compromise and she agreed to grant the custody of the child to the petitioner. However, against the terms of the agreement, she was prevented from interacting with the child. She also alleges in the complaint that she has a genuine apprehension that the minor daughter was subjected to abuse by the 1st petitioner. On these allegations a complaint was lodged and the subject crime was registered. Later, the investigation was completed and a final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, as instructed by Sri. P. Martin Jose, submitted that the 2nd respondent, with a view to harass the petitioners, have suppressed the entire facts which she knew to be false, in order to register a false crime against them. He would contend that the allegations are all in relation to certain incidents which took place immediately after the marriage. However, it is pointed out that the parties with the junction of their relatives had buried the hatchet and they had decided to part ways. The monetary aspects were all settled and the 2nd respondent had issued receipts acknowledging the same. The custody of the minor child was handed over to the 1st petitioner as