IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3529 of 2009()
1. ASHRAF, S/O.MUHAMMED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. SHAREENA D/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 30 YEARS
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.M.R.VIBIN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :04/11/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 3529 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 4th day of November,2009
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused and second respondent
the de facto complainant in C.C.209/2009 on the file of
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta taken
cognizance for the offence under section 498A, 342, 365
of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent was the wife
of the first petitioner. Prosecution case is that their
marriage was on 12.10.1997 and while they were living
as husband and wife, petitioner was treated with
cruelty physically and mentally and on failure of the
second respondent to pay dowry as demanded petitioner
abducted Muhsina their eldest daughter from the hands
of the second respondent and thereafter kept the child
in his custody illegally without properly giving food
and thereby committed the offences. This petition is
filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
to quash the proceedings contending that subsequently
entire matrimonial disputes were settled between
petitioner and second respondent and the marriage was
also dissolved and all liabilities were discharged and
Crl.M.C.3529/2009 2
in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice
to continue the prosecution.
2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and
filed Annexure II affidavit to the effect that entire
matrimonial disputes were settled and as per the mediation
the matrimonial relationship was dissolved and second
respondent has no grievance against the petitioner and she
has no objection for quashing the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
4. The affidavit filed by the second respondent
establish that there was a complete settlement of all the
matrimonial disputes between the petitioner husband and
second respondent wife. In view of the settlement even if
petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a
successful prosecution. As held by the Apex Court in
B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003(4) SCC 675) when the
matrimonial disputes were settled amicably, it is not in
the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and
continue the prosecution. In such circumstances, it is not
in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.209/2009 on the file of Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
Crl.M.C.3529/2009 3
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).NO. /06
---------------------
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006