IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4172 of 2009() -------------------------------------- C.C.NO.97/09 OF JFCM II, HOSDURG ...... (CRIME NO.291 OF 2008 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. MOILAKIRIYATH MUSTHAFA, S/O.MUHAMMAD, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, NILESHWAR. 2. MUTHIRAKKOL MAMMAD, S/O.ERAMULLAN, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, NILESWAR. 3. SAFIYA MOILAKIRIYATH, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, NILESWAR. 4. KUNHAMINA MOILAKIRIYATH, D/O.MAMMAD, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, NILESHWAR. 5. RASHEEDA MOILAKIRIYATH, D/O.MAMMAD, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, NILESHWAR. 6. NAZEER MOILAKIRIYATH, S/O.MAMMAD, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RIALWAY GATE, NILESHWAR. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.V.SAKEENA, D/O.MUHAMMED, MUTTATH, VEGARA, MADAYI, ANSOM, KANNUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR R2 BY ADV. MR.S.R.SREEJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.4172 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 8th January 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.97/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, on Annexure-I final report filed by Sub Inspector of Police, Neeleswaram in crime No.291/2008. The car was registered on a complaint filed by the second respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. First petitioner is the husband and second respondent, the Crmc 4172/09 2 wife. Case of the second respondent and the prosecution is that on 7/7/2003 first petitioner married second respondent, after receiving a dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns and while they were living together as husband and wife, in furtherance of the common intention of all the petitioners, second respondent was treated with cruelty and they thereby committed offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes between the petitioners and second respondent were settled amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Crmc 4172/09 3 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably on the intervention of mediators and she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and hence she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Annexure-II agreement entered into by first petitioner and second respondent, is also produced by the petitioners to establish the settlement. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-I establishes that allegation against petitioners is that they committed matrimonial offence against second respondent. Annexure-II agreement with the Crmc 4172/09 4 affidavit filed by the second respondent establish that there has been settlement of entire matrimonial disputes and consequent to the settlement, second respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003 (4) SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue with the prosecution. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.97/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.