Sainul Abid vs State Of Kerala

M.R.Anitha, J

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No.219/2020 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna in Crime No.649/2020 of Perinthalmanna Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC

It is alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnised on 22.2.2015. While they were living together as husband and wife, she had been subjected to physical and mental torture in demand of more dowry and gold ornaments. It is alleged that the petitioner misappropriated the gold ornaments and money given to her at the time of marriage. Thereby, the accused committed the offences aforementioned.

The parties have amicably settled the entire issues in between them. Annexure-I is the certified copy of the FIR and FIS. Annexure-II is the certified copy of the final report. Annexure-IV is the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant.

Adv.Prinsun  Philip,  filed  vakalath  on  behalf  of  the defacto complainant.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012 (10) SCC 303 : 2012 KHC 4530) a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has held that criminal cases having civil flavour and arising from criminal financial merchantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes where wrong is private or personal in nature can be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.

The learned Public Prosecutor also produced the signed statement of the defacto complainat along with the report of the SHO.

Annexure-IV is the affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant wherein she specifically stated that the dispute between the petitioner and herself have been amicably settled. She has no objection in quashing the further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.219/2020.

It has come out that the entire matrimonial issues between the petitioner and the defact complainant have been amicably settled and the defacto complainant is not intending to prosecute the matter further against the petitioner. Continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an abuse of process of court. So, I do not find any impediment in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed and the further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No.219/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna in Crime No.649/2020 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, is hereby quashed.

Hence, the Crl.M.C. allowed as above.