Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Abdul Hameed vs State Of Kerala on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4941 of 2010()


1. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O. KUNHIMOIDEENKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAMLA, W/O. HAMZAKOYA,
3. MAIMOONA, W/O.SAIDALAVI,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. SAFIYA, D/O. KOMUKUTTY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

                For Respondent  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :20/12/2010

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

           ---------------------------------------------
           CRL.M.C.NO.4941 OF 2010
           ---------------------------------------------
           Dated 20th December, 2010


                          O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused and

second respondent, the de facto complainant

in C.C.646/2002 on the file of Judicial

First Class Magistrate’s Court,

Parappanangadi, taken cognizance for the

offence under Section 498 A read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First

petitioner is the husband and second

respondent, the wife. Petition is filed

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash the cognizance taken and

the proceedings pending before the learned

Magistrate contending that entire

matrimonial disputes were settled amicably

with the second respondent and hence, it is

Crmc 4941/10
2

not in the interest of justice to continue the

prosecution. Annexure-A4 agreement is produced

to show that the matter has been settled.

2. Second respondent appeared through a

counsel and filed an affidavit stating that

during the pendency of the case entire disputes

have been settled and Annexure-A4 agreement is

executed and in view of the settlement, she has

no objection for quashing the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and second respondent and learned

Public Prosecutor were heard.

5. Affidavit filed by the second

respondent establishes that she has settled

all the matrimonial disputes with the

petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in

B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and

another (2003(4) SCC 675), when matrimonial

Crmc 4941/10
3

disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the

interest of justice to stand on technicalities

to continue the prosecution.

Petition is allowed. C.C.646/2002 on

the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s

Court, Parappanangadi is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.101 seconds.