The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR and complaint under Section 482 CrPC. The court quashed the proceedings after the matrimonial dispute between the accused and the complainant was amicably settled.
Crime No. 18/2009 of Kasaragod Police Station is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 1702 of 2009 ---------------------------------(CRIME NO. 18/2009 OF KASARAGODE POLICE STATION)
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
-----------------------------------------------
1. MR. NASAR.B.,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNHI,NOORUDEEN MANZIL, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O. CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. NABEESA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. (LATE) MOHAMMED KUNHI, NOORUDEEN MANZIL, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3. RAMSHAD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) MOHAMMED KUNHI, NOORUDEEN MANZIL, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4. NOORUDEEN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) MOHAMMED KUNHI, NOORUDEEN MANZIL, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. MUNEER, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) MOHAMMED KUNHI, PADI ROAD, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADV. MR.SOJAN MICHEAL.
RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. NASEEMA, D/O. MOHAMMEDKUNHI, INDIRA NAGAR, CHERKALA, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARAGOD.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB, R2 BY ADV.MR.NISHIL.P.S.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
================== Crl.M.C. No. 1702 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009.
O R D E R
First petitioner is the husband and second respondent
the wife. Petitioners 2 to 5 the in-laws of second respondent. In Annexure I complaint filed by second respondent, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod directed investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by forwarding the complaint. Based on it Crime No.18/2009 of Kasaragod Police Station was registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure I complaint and Annexure II FIR, taken on that complaint as well as all further proceedings. It is contended that subsequently the matrimonial disputes between first petitioner and second respondent were amicably settled and second respondent has no intention to proceed against petitioners as she has
Crl.M.C.No.1702/2009
-2-
no grievance against them. Along with the petition Annexure III affidavit of second respondent is also filed stating that the matter has been amicably settled due to the intervention of mediators and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings and she is not intending to proceed with the case. Second respondent is represented by a Counsel.
Crl.M.C.No.1702/2009
-3-
as held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC) there is no necessity to continue the proceedings and the case is to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the matter has been settled between petitioners and second respondent.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
dkr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 498A and 323 IPC can be quashed upon the settlement of the matrimonial dispute by the complainant.
Whether the continued trial serves any purpose when the complainant has no intention to proceed against the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC)Followed¶31
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Nasar.B. & Others
The State of Kerala
Naseema
M. Sasidharan Nambiabar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
