IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1520 of 2009()
1. JALAJA, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MANIYAMMA, AGED 50 YEARS,
Vs
1. PRADEEP KUMAR,
... Respondent
2. BHASKARAN PILLAI,
3. DEEPA, AGED 39 YEARS,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 1520 OF 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated 8th June 2009
O R D E R
Second petitioner is the mother of first
petitioner. First respondent is the husband of first
petitioner. The second respondent is the father-in-
law and third respondent, sister-in-law. Annexure-A1
FIR was registered on the basis of First Information
Statement furnished by first petitioner against
respondents 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections
323, 325 and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. Defecto complainant and the injured have
jointly filed this petition under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 FIR and
all other proceedings in the matter, contending that
all the disputes between petitioners with respondents
1 to 3 were subsequently settled evidenced by
Annexure-II agreement which discloses that
O.P.37/2009 was filed by first petitioner against
first respondent before the Family court and all the
disputes between them were amicably settled and
CRMC 1520/09
2
petitioners have agreed to withdraw the criminal case
as well as the case pending before Family court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and
respondents 1 to 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and
respondents 1 to 3 submitted that offences involved
are in respect of incidents occurred when there was
matrimonial disputes between first petitioner and first
respondent and subsequently all the disputes were
resolved and first petitioner is now residing along
with her husband/first respondent and in the interest
of justice, criminal proceedings is to be quashed to
preserve the matrimonial peace and cordiality.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1
to 3 also submitted that all the disputes were
resolved. The Public Prosecutor also submitted the
same.
5. In the light of the settlement of the disputes
between the parties, no purpose will be served by
proceeding with the investigation and later trial of
the case as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot
v. State of Pubjab (2008 (3) KLT 19) and B.S.Joshi v.
CRMC 1520/09
3
State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062) it is not in the
interest of justice to continue the proceedings when
the matrimonial disputes were amicably settled and
husband and wife are living together.
Petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in crime
No.37/2009 of Adoor police station and further
proceedings taken in that crime are quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.