Basheer Khan vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1976 of 2009()


1. BASHEER KHAN,S/O.ABOOBACKER,POTTAMMAL
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BEEKUTTY,W/O.ABOOBACKER,  -DO-    -DO-
3. NAZEERA,D/O.ABOOBACKER,-DO-    -DO-

                        Vs



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

2. SEJINA.P.P,D/O.V.P.ALIKOYA,RABIYA MANZIL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

                For Respondent  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :19/06/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                ==================
                Crl.M.C. No. 1976 of 2009
                ==================
          Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009.


                          O R D E R

Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.35/2009 of

Feroke Police Station registered on the complaint filed by

second respondent and forwarded to the Police for

investigation by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode

under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure alleging

that the four accused committed offences under Sections

498A, 406, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code. Second respondent is the wife of the first petitioner.

Petitioners 2 and 3 are the mother and sister of first

petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 FIR and further

investigation consequent to the directions of the Magistrate

under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure

contending that all the disputes with second respondent is

settled as evidenced by Annexure A2 agreement.

Crl.M.C.No.1976/2009
-2-

2. Second respondent appeared through an Advocate

and the learned counsel submitted that in view of the

settlement, second respondent has no intention to prosecute

the petitioners further. Annexure A2 agreement shows that

the entire dispute between first petitioner, husband and

second respondent, wife, were settled due to intervention of

mediators and on the terms shown in Annexure A2

agreement, which was executed in the presence of a Notary at

Kozhikode.

3. In view of the settlement there is no chance of a

successful prosecution. As the offences alleged against the

petitioners are matrimonial offences and the matrimonial

dispute was settled under Annexure A2, as held by the Apex

Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT

1062 SC), there is no necessity to jeopardize the settlement

standing on technicalities. In such circumstances, in the

interest of justice, Crime No.35/2009 of Feroke Police Station,

as against the petitioners, is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
dkr