High Court Kerala High Court

Mansoor.A vs Shibina Mansoor on 20 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Mansoor.A vs Shibina Mansoor on 20 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2334 of 2009()


1. MANSOOR.A,AGED 27 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHIBINA MANSOOR,W/O.MANSOOR.A,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.Y.BOBBY JOSEPH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :20/08/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

              ------------------------------------------
               CRL.M.C.NO.2334 OF 2009
              ------------------------------------------

             Dated         20th     August       2009


                           O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.581/2006

on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,

Nedumangad taken cognizance on Annexure-A2 final

report for the offence under Section 363 of Indian

Penal Code. Prosecution case is that petitioner

committed kidnap of first respondent, who was then a

minor on 10/4/2006 and thereby committed the offence.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A2 final report

contending that the dispute with first respondent was

amicably settled and they are now living as husband

and wife and a child is also born in that wed lock and

in such circumstances, it is not the interest of

justice to proceed with the prosecution.

2. First respondent appeared through a

counsel and filed an affidavit that they are now

living as husband and wife and there is no existing

dispute between them.

CRMC 2334/09
2

3. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions

submitted that petitioner and first respondent are

living together.

4. Though the allegation against petitioner

is that he committed kidnap of first respondent,

affidavit of first respondent with the submission of

learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

appearing for first respondent establish that

subsequently petitioner married first respondent and

they are living as husband and wife. In such

circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to

prosecute the petitioner further.

Petition is allowed. C.C.581/2006 on the file

of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad

taken cognizance on Annexure-A2 final report is

quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.