Summayya C. v. Muhammed Salu L.M.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/22ND SRAVANA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 5325 of 2015 () --------------------------- IN CC 934/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,PAYYANNUR IN CRIME NO. 20/2013 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION , KANNUR DIST. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------- SUMMAYYA C. AGED 31 YEARS D/O.V.UMMER, SAMEEH HOUSE, KADANAPPALLY AMSOM DESOM KADANNAPPALLY PADINJAREKARA, P.O.KADANNAPPALLY KANNUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 6 AND STATE:
------------------------------------------
1. MUHAMMED SALU L.M., AGED 40 YEARS S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHMAN.
2. LAYIN AASIYA, AGED 77 YEARS W/O. LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN.
3. LAYIN SUBAIDHA, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. K.T.HAMEED
4. LAYIN NAJEEMA, AGED 42 YEARS W/O. HAREEF
5. LAYIN RAHMATH, AGED 37 YEARS W/O. KHALID.
6. LAYIN RAFEEQUE S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHMAN (ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADAYI AMSOM PUTHIYANGADI DESOM, KOZHIBAZAR NEAR STATE BANK - 670 505)
7. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY ADV. SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS1 R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5325 of 2015 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
----------------------- A1 - TRUE COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP NO. 65/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR DT. 07.01.2013.
A2 - TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 20/2013 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION.
A3 - TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 20/2013 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL ---------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE sm
P.UBAID, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.MC.No. 5325 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of August, 2015
ORDER
The de-facto complainant in a prosecution, brought under section 498A IPC, against all the inmates in the matrimonial home, including the husband, seeks orders quashing the prosecution now on the ground of amicable settlement of the dispute out of court. On a perusal of materials including the complaint, I find that the complaint is really suspicious. The suspicion is strengthened by the fact that the lady has arraigned all the inmates of the matrimonial home as accused in the complaint. Any way, now she has realised the mistake on her part, and joined her husband in matrimony. Thus the whole family disputes stand resolved for ever. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the prosecution be quashed, because continuance of prosecution will defile their matrimony. I am satisfied that the petitioner is now happy with her husband in matrimony, and she does not want to prosecute the matter further.
2. In so many decisions, the Honourable Supreme Court
Crl.MC.No.5325 of 2015 : 2 :
has held, that in the said cases, the High Court can quash prosecution, if there is a genuine settlement between the parties. In the result, the petition is allowed. The prosecution against the respondents 1 to 6, in CC No.934of 2013, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyanur, will stand quashed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 6 will stand released from prosecution, and the bale bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged. Sd/- P. UBAID, JUDGE sm