Home » Jose and Others v. Jojo Antony and Others, Crl.M.C. No. 4794 of 2008 Ker.

Jose and Others v. Jojo Antony and Others, Crl.M.C. No. 4794 of 2008 Ker.

  • Uncategorized

2009 (3) KHC 157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Justice M.Sasidharan Nambiar

2009-06-30T00:00:00

Crl.M.C. No. 4794 of 2008

Advocates appearing for the Parties : M.R.Dhanil,M.H.Hanilkumar; K.S.Sivakumar,George Varghese(Manachirackel)

J U D G M E N T






M.Sasidharan
Nambiar, J.


 


         
1. Petitioners are the accused in CC No. 1319/2008 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court
,
Irinjalakuda. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure
to quash Annexure A final report, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate
for
the
offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act. Prosecution case is
that marriage of the second petitioner and second respondent was fixed to be
solemnized on 02/03/2003, on 12/01/2008
from the Church in accordance with religious practice and thereafter
petitioners made a demand for dowry
of Rs.10 lakhs and informed them that if dowry is not
paid, marriage cannot be performed and marriage
did not take place and by demanding dowry
petitioners committed offences under Sections 3
and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act. This petition
is filed to quash the case contending that
subsequently second respondent got married with
another man and she is living happily and there
was a settlement of all the disputes between
first respondent father and second respondent on
the one hand and the petitioners on the
other and towards the loss
sustained by respondents 1 and 2 on account of the dispute, petitioners paid rupees one lakh as damages and
respondents 1 and 2 have agreed to settle
the dispute and they have no subsisting grievance
against the petitioners and therefore the
case is to be
quashed.


2.   Annexure B affidavit of
the first respondent, Annexure C affidavit of the second respondent and Annexure D agreement settling the
disputes, entered into by the first petitioner
and first respondent were
also produced. Respondents 1 and 2 also appeared through a Counsel.


3.   Learned
Counsel appealing for the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 and learned
Public
Prosecutor were heard.


4. The
final report was laid before the Court based on the investigation, finding that
there
was
a demand for dowry of Rs.10 lakhs in the proposed marriage of second petitioner
and
second
respondent. It is also clear from the materials and admitted facts and stand of
respondents 1 and 2 as well as Annexure C
agreement that there was a settlement of all the
disputes and respondents 1 and 2 and received
damages for the loss sustained by them. It is
also clear that the marriage of second
respondent, though originally proposed with second
petitioner was broken, she is now married and is
now leading a cordial happy matrimonial life.
The question is whether in view of the
settlement when there is no chance of a successful
prosecution, petitioners are to be compelled to
undergo the ordeal of a trial.


5. When
the undisputed facts reveal that respondents 1 and 2 were already compensated
for the
damages sustained by them and they have no subsisting grievance and they also
submitted that there is no necessity to
proceed with the case and the second respondent is
already married, it is
not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case further. Hence petition is allowed. CC No. 1319/2008 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda
is quashed.


Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]