IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1912 of 2009(F) ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.941/2009 OF PERAMBAVOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. FIROZE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE ABDUL GAFOOR, FAIZAL MANZIL, PALLIPRAM KARA, MARAMPILLY, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. AMEENA, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O. LATE ABDUL GAFOOR, FAIZAL MANZIL, PALLIPRAM KARA, MARAMPILLY, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAREEFA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. LATE HILAL, THUKALIL ABDULLA MANZIL, MUDICKAL.P.O, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE, PALLIPRAM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 4. MUHAMMED INFRAN @ MANOJ, S/O. RAHIM, VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, KUNNAMKARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SAJEERA BEEGAM, D/O. SHARAFUDEEN, MEKKEVEETUVILAKATHU HOUSE, CHAROTTUKONAM BHAGAM, KARODE DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE, P.O. KARODE, NEYYATINKARA TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR R2 BY SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No. 1912 of 2009-F =================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.941/2009 of Perumbavoor Police Station. Prosecution case as seen from Annexure I FIR is that petitioners committed offences under Section 498A and read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure I FIR contending that under Annexure III settlement, second respondent has agreed to withdraw the case and therefore the case is to be quashed. 2. Notice was issued to the second respondent. Second respondent appeared through Advocate Sri.Mansoor and submitted that second respondent has not agreed for quashing the complaint and the case is not to be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.1912/2009-F -2- 3. The fact that under Annexure III agreement second respondent agreed to withdraw the case, is not a ground to quash the FIR as sought for, based on the decision of the Apex Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (4) SCC 675: 2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC), when second respondent submits before the court that she is not willing to agree for quashing the proceedings. Quashing the case under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure could be for preventing abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. When the alleged settlement and decision to withdraw the case is disputed by the wife, the case cannot be quashed based on the disputed settlement. Hence petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr