IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4259 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.1368/2010 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 -------------------------------------------------------- 1. NISHAL CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED 30, S/O. CHANDRA MOHAN NAYAR, JYOTHI, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.BOX-22412, SAFATH, ZIP CODE-13085, KUWAIT. 2. MANI MOHAN, AGED 54, W/O. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, JYOTHI, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.BOX-22412, SAFATH, ZIP CODE-13085, KUWAIT. 3. DR.DEEPAK, AGED 37, S/O. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, JYOTHI, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.BOX-22412, SAFATH, ZIP CODE-13085, KUWAIT. 4. CHANDRA MOHAN NAYAR, AGED 66, S/O. RAMAN PILLAI, JYOTHI, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.BOX-22412, SAFATH, ZIP CODE-13085, KUWAIT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI. R.ANIL SRI. ANIL K.MUHAMMED SRI. V.B.SUJEESH MENON SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND SRI. T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. KAVYA MADHAVAN, AGED 25, D/O. P.MADHAVAN, MADHAVAM, SAPPHIRE COURT VILLA-23, VENNALA P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4259 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of October,2010 ORDER This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Crime No.1368/2010 of Palarivattom Police Station registered for the offence under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the de facto complainant and the wife of the first petitioner. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the in-laws of the first petitioner. Petition is filed contending that there is a decision between the parties to settle the dispute and in such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings is not in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Crl.M.C.4259/2010 2 3. Learned senior counsel submitted that parties have agreed to settle all the disputes and for that purpose petitioners have to appear before Family Court, Ernakulam and in view of the registration of the case, they apprehend arrest and therefore a direction be issued not to arrest them so as to enable the parties to settle the dispute. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that instructions will be issued not to arrest the petitioners for seven days to enable the petitioners to settle the dispute. The submission is recorded. 4. As there is no material before the court to show that there has been a settlement of the matrimonial disputes invoking the principles laid down by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675), the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petitioners are at liberty to approach the court along with the second respondent to quash the proceedings, if there is a real settlement of the matrimonial Crl.M.C.4259/2010 3 disputes between the parties. Petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006