IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2699 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.337/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SREEJITH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SREEDHARAN NAIR, GOKULAM, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT - STATE ---------------------------------- 1. PRASEETHA, D/O VASUDEVAN NAIR, KOOTHATTUKULAM HOUSE, KUNISSERY DESOM, ERIMAYUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 2699 of 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed to quash Annexure-A charge-sheet filed against petitioner. 2. Petitioner is first accused in the charge-sheet Annexure-A. As per allegations in the charge-sheet, petitioner married first respondent on 2.4.2003 and they were living together as husband and wife in petitioner's house. Accused 1 to 4 harassed defacto complainant by demanding dowry and she was taken to her parental house on 25th of the same month and, thereby they have committed offences punishable under Section 498 (A) read with 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and first respondent lived together only for about 24 days and divorce was effected. The co-accused were tried and they were acquitted as per Annexure-B order. In Crl.M.C.No. 2699 of 2007 2 the said case, while examined in court as PW1, defacto complainant deposed (vide Annexure-C) that she had no complaint against any of the accused and that they have not committed any act of harassment against her. She also deposed that they had also not demanded any dowry. She happened to file a complaint only because a quarrel between accused nos.2 to 4 and her relatives, she deposed. The complaint was signed only on request by her relatives. It is also submitted that Annexure-D is an affidavit filed in a divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said petition, she had averred that all the claims are settled and she agreed to give evidence in accordance with the compromise between the parties. Annexure-D will show that all the disputes are settled between the parties and in such circumstances, Annexure-A charge may be quashed, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides and on going through the documents referred to by the counsel and also the charge- sheet, I am satisfied of all the submissions made by Crl.M.C.No. 2699 of 2007 3 petitioner's counsel. It will only be an abuse of process of court if the proceedings are continued on the basis of Annexure A in the light of the compromise between the parties and other developments. Therefore, I am inclined to quash Annexure-A and I do so. 5. In the result the following order is passed: 1) Annexure-A charge-sheet is quashed. 2) Petitioner shall not be proceeded against on the basis of Annexure-A charge-sheet. Petition is allowed. K.Hema, Judge cms