IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3760 of 2010()
1. HASEENA.K.V,AGED 22 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA-STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. SIDDIQUE,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.MAMMADKOYA,
3. BICHEEBI,AGED 50 YEARS,W/O.MAMMADKOYA,
4. SAFIYA,AGED 25 YEARS,D/O.MAMMADKOYA,
5. ANWAR,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.SIDDIQUE,
6. HABEEB,AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.SIDDIQUE,
7. KOYAMON ALIAS KOYAKKA,AGED 50 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3760 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner, the defacto complainant in C.C.Nos.
477/2009 and 542/2009 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Kozhikode and C.C.No.
513/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court-I, Kozhikode, filed this
petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the proceedings. C.C.No.477/2009
was taken cognizance on Annexure-2 final report for
the offences under Sections 498A of Indian Penal
Code. C.C.No.542/2009 was taken cognizance on
Annexure-4 final report for the offences under
Sections 342 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. C.C.No.513/2007 was taken cognizance on
Annexure-6 final report for the offences under
Sections 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. This
petition is filed by the defacto complainant in
C.C.No.477/2009 stating that entire disputes with
CRMC 3760/10 2
respondents 2 to 7, the accused in the cases, were
settled amicably, evidenced by Annexures-7 to 9
joint petitions. It is submitted that consequent to
the settlement, she has no subsisting grievance
against the accused and therefore, all the cases
are to be quashed.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor was heard.
3. C.C.No.477/2009 was taken cognizance for the
offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code on
the allegation that petitioner was treated with
cruelty by her husband and in-laws. Affidavit filed
by the petitioner/defacto complainant establishes
that entire matrimonial disputes were settled
amicably. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v.
State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when the
matrimonial disputes were settled, it is not in the
interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
C.C.Nos.513/2007 and 542/2009 were taken cognizance
for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is
CRMC 3760/10 3
not the person to whom hurt was caused after
wrongful restrainment. Hence, petitioner is not
entitled to get those cases quashed. In any case,
all the offences are compoundable under Section 320
of Code of Criminal Procedure. When the offences
are compoundable, it is not for this Court to
exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash
the proceedings. It is for the respective parties
to approach the learned Magistrate for compounding
the offences.
In such circumstances, petition is allowed in
part. C.C.No.477/2009 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Kozhikode is quashed.
13th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv