Allowed

Mohammedali v. Jameela

Kerala HC21 Aug 2009Crl.MC/2581/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition for quashing the FIR and proceedings in a case involving matrimonial disputes under Sections 323 and 498 A IPC. Since the parties amicably settled all disputes, continuance of prosecution was deemed against the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed and Crime No.136 of 2009 of Kolathur Police Station and the proceedings taken therein are quashed.

Mohammedali Vs Jameela — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2581 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------------------

¶7

CRIME NO.136/2009 OF THE KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

¶9

----------------------------------

¶10

1. MOHAMMEDALI, S/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED 28 YEARS, NALAKATH HOUSE, KOLAMANGALAM, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. KAMIAKUTTY,W/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED 80 YEARS, NALAKATH HOUSE, KOLAMANGALAM, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3. SIDDIQUE,S/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED 33 YEARS, ALAKATH HOUSE, KOLAMANGALAM, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. RASID, S/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED 22 YEARS, ALAKATH HOUSE, KOLAMANGALAM, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

5. LAILA, D/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED 28 YEARS, ALAKATH HOUSE, KOLAMANGALAM, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

6. SUHRA, D/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED 35 YEARS, ALAKATH HOUSE, KOLAMANGALAM, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶17

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE.

¶18

----------------------------------------------

¶19

1. JAMEELA, D/O.HUSSAIN, AGED 19 YEARS, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, KURUVAMBALAM, KOLATHU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

CRMC. NO.2581/2009

¶21

2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY THE SI OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.136/2009.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. MR.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.2581 of 2009

¶26

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2009

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.136/2009 of Kolathur Police Station, registered for the offences under Section 323 and 498 A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The first respondent is the defacto complainant, the wife of the first petitioner. Annexure 1 FIR was registered on the complaint filed by first respondent and sent for investigation under section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed U/s.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure 1 FIR and the proceedings in Crime No.136/2009 contending that there is a complete settlement of all the disputes between the petitioners and the first respondent.

¶29

First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Crl.M.Appln.No.4390/2009 jointly with the petitioners stating that they have amicably settled all the disputes and she has no further grievance against the petitioners.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the first respondent were heard.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.2581 of 2009

¶34

the first respondent submitted that as stated in Crl.M.Appln.No.4390 of 2009 all their dispute were settled and in such circumstances it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings and therefore the proceedintgs is to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of first respondent recorded shows that there was a complete settlement of all the dispute between the petitioners and first respondent.

¶35

As held by the Apex Court in Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003(2)KLT 1062) when the matrimonial disputes between the parties are settled and the offences alleged relate to matrimonial dispute, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶36

Hence petiton is allowed. Crime No.136 of 2009 of Kolathur Police Station and the proceedings taken therein are quashed.

¶37

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶38

skj.

Mohammedali v. Jameela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammedali v. Jameela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.a.Jayaram Vs State of Kerala

P.F.Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor.a Vs Shibina Mansoor and Another

Maimutty @ Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Haja Mahin and Others Vs S.I.of Police and Another

Jessy Samuel Vs State of Kerala