IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4794 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------- CC.1319/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4: -------------------------------------------- 1. SHRI. JOSE, AGED 60,S/O.DEVASSY CHITTILAPILLY HOUSE, CHETTUPUZHA PO,THRISSUR DIST 2. SHRI.JOMON, AGED 31 S/O.JOSE, CHITTILAPILLY HOUSE, CHETTUPUZHA PO,THRISSUR DIST (NOW EMPLOYED IN GULF) 3. SHRI.JOSE, JACOB, AGED 35 S/O.JOSE, NEELAMKAVIL HOUSE OLARI P.O.,THRISSUR DIST. 4. SHRI JOSE, AGED 40 S/O. EENASU,THATTILIMBAVA HOUSE MANLUR DESOM, THRISSUR DIST (NOW EMPLOYED IN GUL) BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHRI JOJO ANTONY, AGED 56 S/O.ANTHONY, PAROKARAN HOUSE MAPPRANAM DESOM, THRISSUR DIST. 2. SMT. FLITTY ,AGED 25 D/O..ANTHONY, PAROKARAN HOUSE MAPPRANAM DESOM, THRISSUR DIST. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION,THRISSUR -DIST. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN 682 031 4. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 031. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) R3 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No. 4794 of 2008-F =================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1319/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A final report, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act. Prosecution case is that marriage of the second petitioner and second respondent was fixed to be solemnized on 2-3-2008, on 12-1-2008 from the Church in accordance with religious practice and thereafter petitioners made a demand for dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and informed them that if dowry is not paid, marriage cannot be performed and marriage did not take place and by demanding dowry petitioners committed offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act. This petition is filed to quash the case contending that subsequently second respondent got married with another man and she is living happily and there was a settlement of all the disputes between first respondent Crl.M.C.No.4794/2008-F -2- father and second respondent on the one hand and the petitioners on the other and towards the loss sustained by respondents 1 and 2 on account of the dispute, petitioners paid rupees one lakh as damages and respondents 1 and 2 have agreed to settle the dispute and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and therefore the case is to be quashed. 2. Annexure B affidavit of the first respondent, Annexure C affidavit of the second respondent and Annexure D agreement settling the disputes, entered into by the first petitioner and first respondent were also produced. Respondents 1 and 2 also appeared through a Counsel. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The final report was laid before the court based on the investigation, finding that there was a demand for dowry of Rs.10 lakhs in the proposed marriage of second petitioner and second respondent. It is also clear from the materials and admitted facts and stand of respondents 1 and 2 as well as Crl.M.C.No.4794/2008-F -3- Annexure C agreement that there was a settlement of all the disputes and respondents 1 and 2 and received damages for the loss sustained by them. It is also clear that the marriage of second respondent, though originally proposed with second petitioner was broken, she is now married and is now leading a cordial happy matrimonial life. The question is whether in view of the settlement when there is no chance of a successful prosecution, petitioners are to be compelled to undergo the ordeal of a trial. 5. When the undisputed facts reveal that respondents 1 and 2 were already compensated for the damages sustained by them and they have no subsisting grievance and they also submitted that there is no necessity to proceed with the case and the second respondent is already married, it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case further. Hence petition is allowed. C.C.No.1319/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr