Allowed

M.C.Basheer & 4 Others v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2010Crl.MC/3772/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings under Section 498 A IPC in a dowry harassment case, holding that an amicable settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant justified quashing as it was not in the interest of justice to continue prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceeding C.C.397/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur is quashed.

M.C.Basheer & 4 Others Vs the State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 3772 of 2009() ------------------------CC.397/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR ....................

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1-4 AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶6

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. M.C.BASHEER, S/O. KUNHINKUTTY, LAYAKKAL HOUSE, MATHAMKUZHI, NADUVATTAM AMSOM, PAKARANALLUR DESOM, P.O.PAZHOOR, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶7

2. M.C.MOHAMEDKUTTY, S/O. KUNHINKUTTY, LAYAKKAL HOUSE, MATHAMKUZHI, NADUVATTAM AMSOM, PAKARANALLUR DESOM, P.O.PAZHOOR, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶8

3. M.C.ALEEMA, D/O. KUNHINKUTTY, KUTTIPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, KUTTIPURAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK.

¶9

4. KADHIYAMMU, W/O. LATE KUNHINKUTTY, LAYAKKAL HOUSE, MATHAMKUZHI, NADUVATTAM AMSOM, PAKARANALLUR DESOM, P.O.PAZHOOR, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶10

5. RAMLA D/O. ALI HAJEE, KALATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODAKKAL, THIRUNAVAI AMSOM, KAROOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.K.M.FIROZ

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶19

Crl.M.C.NO.3772 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5^th January 2010

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

First petitioner and fifth

¶22

petitioner are husband and wife.

¶23

Petitioners 1 to 5 are the accused and fifth petitioner the de facto complainant in C.C.397/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, on Annexure-A final report. Prosecution case is that petitioners 1 to 4, the accused, treated fifth petitioner with cruelty demanding more dowry and thereby committed the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed jointly by the de

¶24

¶25

Crmc 3772/09

¶26

facto complainant and the accused to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes

¶27

were settled amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of

¶28

justice to continue the prosecution.

¶29

Fifth petitioner, the de facto

¶30

complainant has filed a separate affidavit stating that in view of the settlement she has no grievance against petitioners 1 to 4 and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue with the prosecution and

¶31

the case is to be quashed.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶34

accused and the de facto complainant, establishes that there has been complete

¶35

¶36

Crmc 3772/09

¶37

settlement of the matrimonial disputes. Affidavit filed by the fifth petitioner conclusively establishes the settlement. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675 ), when the matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, standing on technicalities. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.397/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur is

¶38

quashed.

¶39

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶40

uj.

M.C.Basheer & 4 Others v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Basheer & 4 Others v. the State of Kerala

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

Mustafa Vs a.T.Shamsudheen

K.v.Shajan Vs State of Kerala

Philip Abraham Vs the Assistant Excise Commissioner

K.P.Luka Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Bharathan Vs Plantation Corporation

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Union Territory of Lakshwadeep & Anr.