Vattamannil Hajara vs The State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2932 of 2009()


1. VATTAMANNIL HAJARA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THENGASSERI ABOOBACKER,
3. NAFEESA, W/O. KUNHEENKUTTY,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.FIROZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :08/09/2009

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

              ------------------------------------------
               CRL.M.C.NO. 2932 OF 2009
              ------------------------------------------

             Dated      8th    September          2009


                           O R D E R

First petitioner is the defacto complainant

and second petitioner her husband and third petitioner

the mother of the second petitioner. Petitioners 2

and 3 are the accused in C.C.291/2005 on the file of

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur taken

cognizance on Annexure-A2 final report for the

offences under Section 498 A read with section 34 of

Indian Penal Code. Both the wife, the defacto

complainant and the accused jointly filed this

petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that

there was a subsequent settlement of all the disputes

between them and in view of the settlement, it is not

necessary to proceed with the case. Petition is

filed based on the decision of the Apex court in Joshi

v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386).

2. Learned counsel appearing for

petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

CRMC 2932/09
2

Along with the petition first petitioner, the defacto

complainant has filed a separate affidavit stating

that in view of the settlement of the matrimonial

dispute she has no intention to proceed with the case

and therefore the case is to be quashed.

3. As held by the Apex court in Joshi’s

case (supra) when a matrimonial dispute was settled

amicably, it is not for the court to stand on

technicalities and prevent the settlement of the

matrimonial dispute. Hence, in the interest of

justice the case is to be quashed as sought for.

Petition is allowed. C.C.291/2005 on the

file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur as

against petitioners 2 and 3, the accused, taken

cognizance on Annexure-A2 final report is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.