Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
BABY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 7766 2023
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - The court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings based on a mediation agreement, emphasizing the binding nature of such agreements and the inability to withdraw consent unilaterally.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash proceedings against them in a case that had been settled through a mediation agreement. The 2nd respondent attempted to withdraw consent to the settlement, leading to this dispute.
Issues: Whether the consent given in a mediation agreement can be withdrawn, and if the proceedings based on it should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a mediation agreement is binding once executed, and a party cannot retract consent without valid justification.
Final Decision: The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and all further proceedings are quashed.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).
2. This Crl.M.C. case is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.83/2023 of Kodanad Police Station, Ernakulam. Stating that the entire dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are settled. The petitioners also produced Mediation Agreement, in which it is clearly stated that Crime No.83/2023 of Kodanad Police Station is also settled.
3. Now the Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that he is withdrawing the consent given in the settlement agreement. The counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court inBenny v. Mini [ 2021 (1) KHC 723 ] and Teena M. Ansari v. Rinoj Eappen [ 2019 (4) KHC 593 ] and submitted that such withdrawal is not possible.
4. I think there is some force in the argument of the petitioners. The petitioners are the wife and in laws of the 2nd respondent. The cases against the 2nd respondent is already quashed in the light of the settlement agreement as evident by Anx.B. Now the 2nd respondent is turn around and saying that the case against his former wife and in laws cannot be quashed. I see no justification for such a stand, especially when there is a signed mediation agreement in which the 2nd respondent in clear terms stated that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings.
5. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that the case against the petitioners also should be quashed. All other contentions of the 2nd respondent regarding the custody of the child are left open and if there is any such grievance to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is free to agitate the same separately.
Therefore, this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed.
All further proceedings in Crime No.83/2023 of Kodanad Police Station, Ernakulam, which is now pending as C.C. No.1202/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor-III are quashed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
