Allowed

Muhsin and Others v. Rashida and Another

Kerala HC19 Oct 2010Crl.MC/4253/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The Court held that since matrimonial disputes were amicably settled with the complainant's consent, continuation of prosecution was not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 535/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy is quashed.

Muhsin and Others Vs Rashida and Another — 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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4253 of 2010() ------------------------------CC.535/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,KOYILANDY ....................

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶7

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

¶8

1. MUHSIN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KARIYANKANDY USSAN, BUSHRA MANSIL, KAPPAD P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

2. KARIYANKANDY USSAN, AGED 70 YEARS, BUSHRA MANSIL, KAPPAD P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

3. FATHIMA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.KARIYANKANY USSAN, BUSHRA MANSIL, KAPPAD P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

4. FAROOKE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KARIYANKANY USSAN, BUSHRA MANSIL, KAPPAD P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

1. RASHIDA, D/O.MAMMED KOYA, AGED 20 YEARS, PARIRAM KANDY (H), ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 303.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN KUDUMBATHIL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

SVS/

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶21

Crl.M.C No.4253 of 2010

¶22

Dated this the 19th October, 2010

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioners are the accused and first respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C No.535/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A, and 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 final report submitted in Crime No.118/2010. Crime was registered based on Annexure A1 (a) complaint filed by the first respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy and sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were amicably settled with the first respondent wife. Petitioners have also produced Annexure -A2 copy of the agreement evidencing the settlement.

¶25

First respondent appeared through a counsel

¶26

and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the

¶27

Crl.M.C No.4253 of 2010

¶28

¶29

settlement, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶31

As held by the Apex Court in B.S Joshi and

¶32

others Vs. State of Haryana and another [ 2003 (4) SCC 675] when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably between the husband and wife, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution standing on hyper technique for the reason that offence under Section 498A is not compoundable. Affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶33

Petition is allowed. C.C No.535/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy is quashed.

¶34

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶35

Muhsin and Others v. Rashida and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhsin and Others v. Rashida and Another

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

Videocon Industries Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

S.D.Pradeep Vs Sukumara Pillai

K.Ganesan Vs Bank of Baroda and Others

G.Nirmala Vs Public Prosecutor,Ekm.

N.Sivakumar Vs Sahadhevan & Another

Jisha Vs State of Kerala