IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1743 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.245/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... (CRIME NO.54 OF 2006 OF BEYPORE POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ROSINA K.P., D/O. ASSAN KOYA, AGED 27 YEARS, BISMILLA HOUSE, NADUVATTOM AMSOM, MADAPARAMP, BEPUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. A.J.RIYAS, S/O. MAMMAD KOYA, AGED 31 YEARS, MUNDOPPADA, MARAD, KOZHIKODE DIST. 3. SUHARA, W/O. BASHEER, NADHI NAGAR, CHAKKUMKADAV, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA. RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEYPORE POLICE STATION, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 1743 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 1st June 2009 O R D E R First petitioner is the wife and second petitioner her husband. Third petitioner is the mother of second petitioner. On the final report filed by police after investigation, Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A, 323, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The case against petitioners 2 and 3 is now pending as C.C.245/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode. This petition is filed by the wife and husband and her father-in-law together under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Code to quash Annexure-A1 FIR as well as further proceedings taken by the learned Magistrate in C.C.245/2006 contending that the disputes between wife and husband were subsequently resolved and they do not want to continue the prosecution. As the petition is jointly filed by the wife and husband, I find no reason to suspect the genuineness of the grounds stated. It is clear that CRMC 1743/09 2 the marriage of first petitioner is validly dissolved by second petitioner and they do not intend to fight further. As declared by the Apex court in Joshi v.State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) a lenient view is to be taken in matrimonial cases and hyper technical view would only be counter productive. In view of the settlement of the dispute between wife and husband, it is in the interest of administration of justice to quash the proceedings. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR, the final report and C.C.245/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.