IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3506 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.316/2001 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SISUPALAN, POOVANAMNINNATHIL VEEDU, KAPPIL, EDAVA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LALI, D/O.SARALA, PUTHENPURA VEEDU, PUTHUKKULAM VILLAGE, PUTHENKULAM, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTRO SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R1 ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3506 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the first accused in C.C.No. 558/2008 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Paravoor, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-C final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Paravoor after investigation. The case was registered under Annexure-B FIR on Annexure-A complaint, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. As petitioner was absconding, the case as against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.316/2001 and accused 2 and 3 were tried by the learned Magistrate and acquitted them. The case as against the petitioner was subsequently transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.No.224/2007. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and second CRMC 3506/09 2 respondent wife were amicably settled and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and jointly filed Crl.M.Appl.No.6024/2009 stating that entire matrimonial disputes with the petitioner were amicably settled and in view of the settlement, second respondent has no intention to proceed with the case further and accepting the composition, the case is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-C final report establishes that the case against the petitioner is that he, along with the co-accused, committed offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code as against the second respondent his wife. Joint statement filed by the second respondent along with the petitioner establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were amicably settled and the other co-accused were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge as per order CRMC 3506/09 3 dated 20.4.2007. It is clear that consequent to the acquittal of the co-accused and settlement of the matrimonial disputes, there is no likelihood of a successful conviction, even if petitioner is to be tried. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when the matrimonial disputes were amicably settled, it is not for the court to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution, especially, when, consequent to the settlement, there is no likelihood of a conviction and it would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Petition is allowed. L.P.No.224/2007 (C.C.No. 316/2001) on the file Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Paravoor is quashed. 2nd November, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv