IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1976 of 2009() ------------------------- CRIME NO.35/2009 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ----------------------------- 1. BASHEER KHAN,S/O.ABOOBACKER,POTTAMMAL HOUSE,VAZHAYUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BEEKUTTY,W/O.ABOOBACKER, -DO- -DO- 3. NAZEERA,D/O.ABOOBACKER,-DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINNAT ------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,FEROKE POLICE STATION,FEROKE,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SEJINA.P.P,D/O.V.P.ALIKOYA,RABIYA MANZIL CHURAMUKKU NILAM,FEROKE,CHUKKAM,KOZHIKODE DIST. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dkr M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1976 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.35/2009 of Feroke Police Station registered on the complaint filed by second respondent and forwarded to the Police for investigation by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the four accused committed offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the mother and sister of first petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 FIR and further investigation consequent to the directions of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that all the disputes with second respondent is settled as evidenced by Annexure A2 agreement. Crl.M.C.No.1976/2009 -2- 2. Second respondent appeared through an Advocate and the learned counsel submitted that in view of the settlement, second respondent has no intention to prosecute the petitioners further. Annexure A2 agreement shows that the entire dispute between first petitioner, husband and second respondent, wife, were settled due to intervention of mediators and on the terms shown in Annexure A2 agreement, which was executed in the presence of a Notary at Kozhikode. 3. In view of the settlement there is no chance of a successful prosecution. As the offences alleged against the petitioners are matrimonial offences and the matrimonial dispute was settled under Annexure A2, as held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC), there is no necessity to jeopardize the settlement standing on technicalities. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, Crime No.35/2009 of Feroke Police Station, as against the petitioners, is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr