The main prayer in the aforecaptioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case is

as follows:-

“............. to allow this Criminal M.C., quashing Annexure I First

Information Report and Annexure II Final Report pending before

the 7^th Addl. District and Sessions Court at Ernakulam as SC.

No.797/2018.”

2.

Heard Sri. G. Maheswary, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Sri. T.R. Renjith, learned Public Prosecutor for R1 State,

Smt.M.Megha, learned counsel appearing for R2 lady de facto complainant

and Sri. S. Prasun, learned Amicus Curiae.

3.

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3

among the three accused in the impugned Annexure-I Crime No.1822/2011

of Palluruthy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A,

306 & 34 of the IPC on the basis of the First Information Statement lodged in

that regard on 1.9.2011 by the lady de facto complainant. The 2^nd respondent

de facto complainant is the wife of the 1^st petitioner (A1). The 2^nd petitioner

(A2) is the father of the 1^st petitioner (A1). The 3^rd petitioner is the

3

brother-in-law of the 1^st petitioner (A1). The Police, after investigation, has

filed the impugned Annexure-II final report/charge sheet and after

committal proceedings, the case is now pending as Sessions Case,

S.C.No.797/2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam.

4.

The brief of the allegation is that after the marriage of the 1^st

petitioner with the 2^nd respondent lady de facto complainant, the petitioners

have consistently treated the 2^nd respondent with cruelty and harassment and

that on 31.8.2011, the petitioners had verbally abused her and demanded her

that she should bring more gold ornaments and dowry and out of extreme

distress and frustration, she has attempted to commit suicide and was taken

to the hospital and that thereby the petitioners have committed the above

said offences.

5.

Now the parties submit that the incidents occurred only on

account of disputes in marital discords and that the parties have now settled

the entire issues and that the 2^nd respondent lady de facto complainant has

no further issues in the matter and that she has now sworn to Annexure-III

affidavit dated 9.8.2019 stating that she has settled the entire disputes with

the petitioners and that she is now leading a happy married life with the 1^st

petitioner and that she does not intend to proceed prosecution any further

and that the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed as otherwise

her marital life would be detrimentally affected, etc.

4

6.

It is by now well established by a series of rulings of the Apex

Court and various High Courts including this Court in the cases as in Gian

Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10

SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.

reported in [(2014) 6 SCC 466], that, where the disputes have arisen on

account of marital discords etc., then the Courts can take a liberal stand

in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings, if the parties have

arrived at a settlement.

7.

In the instant case, one of the major offences alleged against

the petitioners is the one as per Section 306 of the IPC and the other is

as per Section 498A of the IPC. The latter offence as per Section 498A

of the IPC could easily be quashed on the ground of settlement between

the parties. Since the prosecution has also alleged that the petitioners

have committed the offence as per Section 306 of the IPC, this Court

deemed it fit and proper to appoint an Amicus Curiae to assist this

Court to consider the said issue as to whether the present case could be

quashed on the ground of settlement between the parties. Accordingly,

with the consent of all the parties concerned, this Court had appointed

Sri. S. Prasun, learned Advocate as Amicus Curiae, who has submitted

Amicus Curiae brief in this case. It is beyond any dispute that the

5

prosecution case is to the effect that though the 2^nd respondent lady

de facto complainant had attempt