Habeeb Rahman vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 7 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4780 of 2010()


1. HABEEB RAHMAN, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PATHUMMA, W/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHAHIJA, D/O.ABDUL KHADER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.NISHIL.P.S.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :07/12/2010

 O R D E R
            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
          ===========================
          CRL.M.C.No. 4780   OF 2010
          ===========================

    Dated this the 7th day of December,2010

                     ORDER

Petitioners are the accused and second

respondent the de facto complainant in

C.C.485/2010 on the file of Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery taken

cognizance for the offence under sections 406

and 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal

Code. First petitioner and second respondent

are husband and wife. Second petitioner is the

mother of the first petitioner. Petition is

filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash the proceedings before the

learned magistrate contending that entire

matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and

consequent to the settlement, it is not in the

interest of justice to continue the

prosecution.

Crl.M.C.4780/2010 2

2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel

and filed an affidavit stating that entire

matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and

consequent to the settlement, she has no grievance

against the petitioners and therefore the case

could be prematurely terminated.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, second respondent and learned Public

Prosecutor were heard.

4.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 the prosecution. The

affidavit filed by second respondent establishes

that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes

with the petitioners. In such circumstances, it is

not in the interest of justice to continue the

prosecution.

Crl.M.C.4780/2010 3

Petition is allowed. C.C.485/2010 on the file

of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Thamarassery is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006