IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 227 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.31/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. BINO THOMAS, S/O.LATE P.N.THOMAS, KINATTUKARA PUTHENPURACKAL,49/2092A, MERRA 140, EDAKKATTU ROAD (LANE 2), KOCHI-24. 2. SAJU MATHEW, S/O.LATE A.K.MATHEW, 12/124, BROTHERS CRUSH ROAD,VAZHAKKALA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. BINDHU SAJU, W/O.SAJU, 12/124, BROTHERS CRUSH RAOD, VAZHAKKALA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. AMMUKKUTTY THOMAS, AGED 63, W/O.LATE P.N.THOMAS, KONATTUKALA PUTHENPURACKAL, 49/2092A, MERRA 140, EDAKKATTU ROAD (LANE-2)KOCHI-24. BY ADV. MR.V.PHILIP MATHEWS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.C.VARKEY, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, SANTHI NAGAR, ANNEX NO.19, T.O.G.ROAD, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI. 3. MITA VARKEY, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, SANTHI NAGAR, ANNEX NO.19, T.O.G.ROAD, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI. CRL.M.C. NO. 227/2010-E: *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IMPLEADED: 4. THANKAMMA VARKEY, W/O. C.C. VARKEY, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, SANTHINAGAR, ANNEX NO.19, T.O.G. ROAD, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI. 5. REETHAMMA, W/O. SEBASTIAN, POLLAYIL HOUSE, ANDHAKARANAZHY, PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS VIDE ORDER DTD. 19/03/2010 IN CRLM.A. NOS.842/2010 AND 1468/2010 RESPECTIVELY. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B. PRAMOD, R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.M.K.DILEEPAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.227 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 19th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and respondents 2 to 5 the de facto complainants and the injured in C.C.31/2006, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 451 and 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First petitioner is the husband and third respondent is his wife. Second respondent is the father-in-law of the first petitioner. Prosecution case is that petitioners treated, third respondent with cruelty demanding dowry and on 16/5/2005 at about 9.15 p.m under the guise of seeing the child petitioners 1 Crmc 227/10 2 to 3 came to house No.2/363 of Kalamassery Municipality and in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained second respondent and second petitioner bite his finger and caused hurt and petitioners 1 and 3 also caused hurt to respondents 4 and 5 by beating and kicking them and thereby committed the offences. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Being a matrimonial offence petition was originally filed by the petitioners, impleading only respondents 2 and 3 the father-in-law and wife of the first petitioner. When it was pointed Crmc 227/10 3 out that hurt was also caused to respondents 4 and 5, after wrongfully confining them, they were also impleaded as additional respondents. Respondents 2 to 5 filed petitions jointly with the petitioners stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 2 to 5 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Joint statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 along with petitioners establish that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably between third respondent wife and petitioners and second respondent father-in-law of the first petitioner has also settled the disputes with the petitioners. Similarly, joint Crmc 227/10 4 petitions filed by respondents 4 and 5, along with petitioners establish that their disputes with the petitioners were also amicably settled. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC ), when offences alleged against petitioners are matrimonial offences or are purely personal in nature against respondents 2 to 4 and all those disputes were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.31/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.