IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4330 of 2010()
1. MUHAMMED SHEREEF,
... Petitioner
2. P.A.ABDULLA, S/O.ABOOBACKER,
3. MAIMOONA, AGED 56 YEARS,
4. SHAMEER, AGED 25 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. SHAMEEMA, AGED 26 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :27/10/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 4330 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 27th day of October,2010
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused and second
respondent the de facto complainant in
C.C.522/2010 on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate’s Court, Kasaragod taken cognizance
for the offence under sections 323, 324, 328,
342, 506(i) and 498A read with section 34 of
Indian Penal Code on Annexure A3 final report.
This petition is filed under section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the
cognizance taken contending that entire
matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and
consequent to the settlement, it is not in the
interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
2. Second respondent appeared through a
counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she
Crl.M.C.4330/2010 2
has settled all the matrimonial disputes with the
petitioners and has no subsisting grievance against
them and therefore there is no objection to quash
the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, second respondent and learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
4. Annexure A1 F.I.R was registered based on
Annexure A2 complaint filed by the second
respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kasaragod and sent for investigation under section
156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is after
investigation Annexure III final report was
submitted alleging that petitioners committed
offences under section 323, 342 and 498A read
with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The
allegation is that petitioners, in furtherance of
the common intention, wrongfully confined the
second respondent in the bed room and also caused
hurt and treated her with cruelty. The affidavit
filed by the second respondent establishes that she
Crl.M.C.4330/2010 3
has settled all the matrimonial disputes with the
petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another
(2003) 4 SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes were
settled amicably, it is not in the interest of
justice to stand on technicalities and to continue
the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.522/2010 on the file
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006