IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1702 of 2009 ---------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 18/2009 OF KASARAGODE POLICE STATION) .......... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 5: ----------------------------------------------- 1. MR. NASAR.B.,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNHI,NOORUDEEN MANZIL, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O. CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. NABEESA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. (LATE) MOHAMMED KUNHI, NOORUDEEN MANZIL, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. RAMSHAD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) MOHAMMED KUNHI, NOORUDEEN MANZIL, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. NOORUDEEN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) MOHAMMED KUNHI, NOORUDEEN MANZIL, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. MUNEER, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) MOHAMMED KUNHI, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SOJAN MICHEAL. RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. NASEEMA, D/O. MOHAMMEDKUNHI, INDIRA NAGAR, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARAGOD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB, R2 BY ADV.MR.NISHIL.P.S. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1702 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009. O R D E R First petitioner is the husband and second respondent the wife. Petitioners 2 to 5 the in-laws of second respondent. In Annexure I complaint filed by second respondent, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod directed investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by forwarding the complaint. Based on it Crime No.18/2009 of Kasaragod Police Station was registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure I complaint and Annexure II FIR, taken on that complaint as well as all further proceedings. It is contended that subsequently the matrimonial disputes between first petitioner and second respondent were amicably settled and second respondent has no intention to proceed against petitioners as she has Crl.M.C.No.1702/2009 -2- no grievance against them. Along with the petition Annexure III affidavit of second respondent is also filed stating that the matter has been amicably settled due to the intervention of mediators and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings and she is not intending to proceed with the case. Second respondent is represented by a Counsel. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for second respondent submitted that as stated in Annexure III affidavit, second respondent has settled the dispute with the petitioners and she has no intention, whatsoever, to proceed with the case and in such circumstances, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement of the disputes, no purpose would be served by undergoing the ordeal of a trial and in such circumstances Crl.M.C.No.1702/2009 -3- as held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC) there is no necessity to continue the proceedings and the case is to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the matter has been settled between petitioners and second respondent. 4. The offences alleged against the petitioners are matrimonial offences and connected with the matrimonial dispute. Annexure III affidavit with submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent establish that the matrimonial disputes were now settled amicably and second respondent has no intention to proceed against the petitioners. Under such circumstances, even if the ordeal of trial is undergone, there is no chance of a successful prosecution. 5. Petition is allowed. In the interest of justice, Crime No.18/2009 of Kasaragod Police Station is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr