IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4299 of 2010 ---------------------------------- [CC.NO.9/2010 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ YOOBI YOUSUF, D/O. LATE K.K.YOUSAF, AGED 33 YEARS, KARIPPAYIL HOUSE, THAYIKKATTUKAR.P.O, ALUVA, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SHABU.S. AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. SAIDUKANNU,VALIYATHENVEEDU, NEDUMON, KOVALAM, NEDUMON.P.O.-695 007. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM, R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.SUJA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4299 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 9th day of November,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C.9/2010 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam taken cognizance for the offence under section 363 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure AII final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police. Petitioner and second respondent are wife and husband. Prosecution case in Annexure AII final report is that as directed by the Family Court, petitioner had given custody of the child for two hours on 5.9.2009 at about 2 to 4.30 p.m to the second respondent and he kidnapped the child and thereby committed the offence under section 363 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed by the wife herself to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were settled Crl.M.C.4299/2010 2 amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that he filed O.P.1660/2007 before Family Court, Ernakulam for getting custody of the minor son Sayed Farhan and the case was settled by a compromise agreement and in view of the settlement, entire disputes were settled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The very prosecution case is that second respondent husband took away the child which was given by the petitioner, pursuant to the order of the Family Court, for a period of two hours on 5.9.2009. Interim custody for that period was given in O.P.1660/2007. That case itself was settled by a compromise agreement as is clear from Annexure AIII agreement. As held by the Apex Court Crl.M.C.4299/2010 3 in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003(4) SCC 675) when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and it has been amicably settled between the husband and wife, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.9/2010 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006