IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 766 of 2010()
1. SALIM JAILANI, S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI,
... Petitioner
2. SWAPNA AJI SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 30,
3. SUBAIDA, AGED 56, W/O.ABDUL KHADER,
4. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 62,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE
3. FAREEDA, D/O.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 32,
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent :SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :05/03/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.766 OF 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated 5th March 2010
O R D E R
Petitioners are the accused and
third respondent, the de facto complainant
in C.C.46/2006 on the file of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram
taken cognizance for the offence under
Section 498 A read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final
report, submitted by Sub Inspector of
Police, Museum police station in crime
No.309/2005 registered under Annexure-A1
FIR based on the first information
statement of third respondent. Petition is
filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the cognizance taken and
the proceedings pending before the learned
Crmc 766/10
2
Magistrate contending that entire matrimonial
disputes were amicably settled, evidenced by
Annexure-A3 agreement of settlement and hence
it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution.
2. Third respondent appeared through a
counsel and filed Crl.M.A.1141/2010 jointly
with the petitioners stating that entire
matrimonial disputes were settled and
consequent to the settlement, she has no
grievance against the petitioners and she has
no intention to proceed with the case and
therefore, she has no objection for quashing
the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, third respondent and learned
Public Prosecutor were heard.
4. Annexure-III agreement of settlement
Crmc 766/10
3
arrived at by third respondent wife and first
petitioner husband establishes that entire
matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and
consequent to the settlement third respondent
had no subsisting grievance against petitioners
and hence she has no objection for quashing the
proceedings.
5. 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 to continue the prosecution, as ultimately,
even if petitioners are to be tried, there is
no likelihood of a successful prosecution as
there is a settlement with de facto complainant
wife. In such circumstances, when the joint
petition filed by third respondent establishes
Crmc 766/10
4
that there was an amicable settlement with the
petitioners and consequent to the settlement
she has no grievance against the petitioners,
it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.46/2006 on the
file of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvananthapuram is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.