IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 338 of 2011()
1. K.V.KRISHNAN,S/O.CHINDAN,
... Petitioner
2. K.V.KALLIANI,D/O.CHINDAN,
Vs
1. SHYLAJA.., D/O.KUMARAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE - REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.R.SREEJITH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :02/02/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.338 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioners are accused in Crime No.995 of 2008 of Kasaragod Police
Station and C.P. No.57 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Kasaragod for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). That case
arose on a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 alleging offences apart
from the above, under Section 314 of the Code as well. Complaint was
forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Police after investigation submitted final report (Anneuxre-
AV) alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307
read with Section 34 of the Code. Proceedings are sought to be quashed on the
strength of an agreement (Annexure-AIII) entered between petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has sworn an affidavit (Annexure-AIV) to
that effect.
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.1 and
the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has
confirmed the fact of settlement between petitioners and respondent No.1.
3. Case set up by respondent No.1 in the complaint is that petitioners
subjected her to cruelty demanding more ornaments and money, petitioner No.1
attempted to cause her death by throttling her and that under pressure from
Crl.MC No.338/2011
2
petitioner No.1, husband she had to agree for termination of the pregnancy and
thereby petitioners committed offences. However on investigation no offence
under Section 314 of the Code was disclosed.
4. As of now only offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307
read with Section 34 of the Code are charged against petitioners. Incorporation
of Section 307 is based on petitioner No.1 allegedly throttling respondent No.1.
The dispute is settled between petitioners and respondent No.1. Annexure-AIV,
affidavit sworn by respondent No.1 states that respondent No.1 has settled the
dispute with petitioners and she does not want to prosecute the matter further.
Respondent No.2 has no objection in closing the matter. Since offences
attributed to petitioners is personal to and between petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.1 and in the view of the settlement between the parties there is
no possibility of successful culmination of the prosecution I am inclined to allow
this petition.
Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-AV, final report in Crime No.995 of
2008 of Kasaragod Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and all proceedings
in C.P.No.57 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Kasaragod are quashed against petitioners.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks