IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 227 of 2010() 1. BINO THOMAS, S/O.LATE P.N.THOMAS, Petitioner 2. SAJU MATHEW, S/O.LATE A.K.MATHEW, 3. BINDHU SAJU, W/O.SAJU, 12/124, 4. AMMUKKUTTY THOAMS, AGED 63, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY Respondent 2. C.C.VARKEY, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, 3. MITA VARKEY, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW For Respondent :SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice [ENTITY] Dated :19/03/2010 O R D E R [ENTITY],J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated 19th March 2010 O R D E R
Petitioners are the accused and respondents 2 to 5 the de facto complainants and the injured in
[CASE NUMBER], on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva taken cognizance for the offences under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT]. First petitioner is the husband and third respondent is his wife. Second respondent is the father-in-law of the first petitioner. Prosecution case is that petitioners treated, third respondent with cruelty demanding dowry and on 16/5/2005 at about 9.15 p.m under the guise of seeing the child petitioners 1 to 3 came to house No.2/363 of Kalamassery Municipality and in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained second respondent and second petitioner bite his finger and caused hurt and petitioners 1 and 3 also caused hurt to respondents 4 and 5 by beating and kicking them and thereby committed the offences. Petition is filed under [SECTION] of [ACT], to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Being a matrimonial offence petition was originally filed by the petitioners, impleading only respondents 2 and 3 the father-in-law and wife of the first petitioner. When it was pointed out that hurt was also caused to respondents 4 and 5, after wrongfully confining them, they were also impleaded as additional respondents. Respondents 2 to 5 filed petitions jointly with the petitioners stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 2 to 5 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Joint statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 along with petitioners establish that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably between third respondent wife and petitioners and second respondent father-in-law of the first petitioner has also settled the disputes with the petitioners. Similarly, joint petitions filed by respondents 4 and 5, along with petitioners establish that their disputes with the petitioners were also amicably settled. As held by the Apex court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], when offences alleged against petitioners are matrimonial offences or are purely personal in nature against respondents 2 to 4 and all those disputes were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. [CASE NUMBER] on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva is quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE.