High Court Kerala High Court

Rasheed vs Jasmine on 3 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rasheed vs Jasmine on 3 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4739 of 2010()


1. RASHEED, S/O.ABDULKHADER, AGED 26 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. NAFEESA, W/O.ABDULKHADER, AGED 47 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. JASMINE, D/O.HAMSA, AGED 24 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.R.ANANDAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :03/12/2010

 O R D E R
          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

           ---------------------------------------------
           CRL.M.C.NO.4739 OF 2010
           ---------------------------------------------
           Dated 3rd           December, 2010


                          O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused and

first respondent, the de facto complainant

in C.C.5037/2009 on the file of Judicial

First Class Magistrate’s Court,

Irinjalakuda now pending as L.P.21/2010.

First petitioner and first respondent are

husband and wife. Second petitioner is the

mother of the first petitioner. Learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance for the

offence under Section 498 A read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on

Annexure-1 complaint against four accused.

Accused 3 and 4 were already discharged by

Annexure-2 order. Petition is filed under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Crmc 4739/10
2

to quash the proceedings against them

contending that entire matrimonial disputes

were settled amicably and hence, it is not in

the interest of justice to continue the

prosecution.

2. Petitioners along with first

respondent filed a petition seeking permission

to compound the offence contending that entire

matrimonial disputes were settled and

therefore, it is to be compounded. First

respondent has also filed separate affidavit

stating that she has settled all the

matrimonial disputes amicably and consequent to

the settlement, she has no objection for

quashing the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, first respondent and learned

Public Prosecutor were heard.

Crmc 4739/10
3

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 proceed with the prosecution. Affidavit

filed by the first respondent establishes that

she has settled all the matrimonial disputes

amicably. In such circumstances, it is not in

the interest of justice to continue the

prosecution.

Petition is allowed. L.P.21/2010 on the

file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s

Court, Irinjalakuda is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.