High Court Kerala High Court

Abdullahil Mubarak vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abdullahil Mubarak vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 846 of 2010()


1. ABDULLAHIL MUBARAK, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MAIMOONA A.P., AGED 50 YEARS,

                        Vs



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

2. BUSHARA, AGED 29 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHARAM.P

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :10/03/2010

 O R D E R
                    M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                         ---------------------------
                      CRL.M.C. No. 846 OF 2010
                          --------------------------
               Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010

                               O R D E R

The second petitioner de facto complainant filed a

complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery

alleging that petitioners committed offence under Sections 406 and

498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It was sent for

investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Annexure-1 FIR was thus recorded based on the said complaint.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash the FIR and further proceedings contending that

as evidenced by Annexure-2 agreement, entire matrimonial disputes

were amicably settled and in view of settlement, it is not in the

interest of Justice to continue the prosecution.

2 The second respondent appeared through a counsel and

filed a joint statement along with the petitioners stating that entire

matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the

settlement, second respondent has no subsisting grievance against

the petitioners and therefore the proceedings are to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second

Crl.M.C. No.846/2010
2

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 to continue the prosecution.

The joint statement filed by the second respondent corroborated by

Annexure-2 agreement entered into by the first petitioner and the

second respondent establishes that all matrimonial disputes were

settled amicably. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of

justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution.

Petition is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR and Crime No.385/2009

of Mukkom Police Station is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
(JUDGE)

vps

Crl.M.C. No.846/2010
3