IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date: 30.07.2010 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P. No.17029 of 2010 1. M. Mir Ali Mehdi 2. M. Siddiqua 3. Mir Ali Hussain ... Petitioners. -Vs.- State rep. by 1. The Inspector of Police W-23, All Women Police Station Royapettah, Chennai-14. 2. Fathima Sultana ... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to C.C. No. 9688 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr. Karthikaa Ashok For Respondents : Mr. A. Saravanan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.P.B.Suresh Babu for R2 ------- ORDER These petitioners seek quash proceedings in C.C. No. 9688 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The first petitioner is the son of the petitioners 2 & 3. The first petitioner married the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant on 07.01.2001. The petitioners are facing prosecution for offences under Section 498(A), 406 IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in a case pending in C.C. No. 9688 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. When the matter is taken up today, it is represented that the defacto complainant / wife of the first petitioner and other petitioners have arrived at a settlement and thereunder, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been paid to the second respondent. Informing that there is no further dispute, the second respondent has, under affidavit dated 30.07.2010, stated that she has no objection to quash https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 9688 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 3. In the circumstance, following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, to the effect that matrimonial litigation need not be encouraged so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts, this court would quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 9688 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The IV Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police W-23, All Women Police Station Royapettah, Chennai-14. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 3 ccs To Mr.P.B.Suresh Babu, Advocate, SR.55633 Crl.O.P. No.17029 of 2010 GG(CO) sra 12/08/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/