High Court Kerala High Court

Shibu Mathew vs Anu K.Joy on 23 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Shibu Mathew vs Anu K.Joy on 23 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4906 of 2010()


1. SHIBU MATHEW, S/O. MATHAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ANU K.JOY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.V.SHAJI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :23/12/2010

 O R D E R
             M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
            --------------------------
              Crl.M.C.No.4906 of 2010
            --------------------------

                       ORDER

Petitioner is the accused and first respondent,

the injured defacto complainant, in C.P.No.51/2004,

now pending as L.P.No.193/2005, on the file of

Judicial First class Magistrate’s Court-I,

Pathanamthitta, taken cognizance for the offence

under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-

5 final report. Petitioner is the husband and first

respondent, the wife. This petition is filed under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash

the proceedings 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. Annexure-3

order of Family Court, Thiruvalla in O.P.No.

381/2006, consequent to the settlement, is also

produced.

CRMC 4906/10 2

2. First respondent appeared through a counsel

and filed an affidavit stating that petitioner

married her on 11.6.2000 and a child was born on

10.6.2001 and while they were living together, the

marital relationship got strained which lead to

several litigations and subsequent to the

registration of the case, entire disputes were

settled and consequent to the settlement, she does

not intend to proceed with the case further and she

is not having any subsisting grievance against the

petitioner and in such circumstances, she has no

objection for quashing the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, first respondent and learned Public

Prosecutor were heard.

4. Prosecution case, as is seen from Annexure-5

final report, is that on 12.3.2004 at about 8.30

p.m., petitioner inflicted injuries on the first

respondent with a knife and thereby committed the

offence. Affidavit filed by the first respondent

CRMC 4906/10 3

establishes that entire disputes were settled

amicably. The offences alleged against the

petitioner are purely personal in nature against

the first respondent. As held by the Apex Court in

Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT

19) and B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC

675), when the offences alleged are purely personal

in nature against the first respondent and first

respondent has settled all the disputes amicably,

it is not in the interest of justice to continue

the prosecution.

Petition is allowed. L.P.No.193/2005 on the

file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I,

Pathanamthitta is quashed.

23rd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv