IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4276 of 2010 ---------------------------------- [CC.NO.1486/2006 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI,S/O.THANKAPPAN,UDAYA MANDIRAM, KUNNATHODE, KULATHOOR, KARIMANAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RETHNEMMA,D/O.AMBUJAKSHI,DO. DO. 3. PUSHPAJA, D/O.NAGAMMA,DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN,SEENA BHAVAN,PILLAVEEDU MURI,SASTHVATTOM, VEYILOOR P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4276 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 21st October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.1486/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal, taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent is the father of Seena, the wife of first petitioner. Crmc 4276/10 2 Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Though the wife of the first petitioner, is not made a party to the petition, an affidavit of the wife sworn to before the same counsel, before whom the affidavit of the second respondent was sworn to, was submitted reporting the wife has also settled entire disputes amicably and consequent to the settlement, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, third respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and Crmc 4276/10 3 another (2003(4) SCC 675), when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Affidavit filed by the wife and her father, the de facto complainant establish that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, they have no grievance against the petitioners. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.1486/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.