IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRMC 222/2005 OF THE ERNAKULAM TOWN P.S. FILED BEFORE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. BIJU MATHEW, AGED 35 YEARS, THEKKANETTUPLACKAL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. MATHAI, AGED 69, S/O. MATHAI, THEKKANETTUPLACKAL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. SUSANNAMA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. MATHAI, THEKKANETTUPLACKAL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVOCATE MR.C.P.SAJI RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GINU MATHAN, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. MATHAN, BLOCK NO.6, FLAT NO.401, ESLAND ENCLAVE APARTMENTS, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB ADVOCATE MR. S. ABHILASH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 752 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all proceedings in C.C. 2257/2005 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The wife has filed a complaint against the husband and others under Section 498(A) r/w 34 IPC. Now an affidavit is filed to the effect that they have settled the matter and it is specifically stated that she does not want to proceed against her husband and the in-laws. I ascertained from the learned counsel Sri. Abilash regarding the affidavit and he has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter and they did not want to continue the prosecution. The methodology in such type of cases had been decided by the apex court in the decision reported in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [2003 (4) SCC 675]. The apex court held that the circumstances look into the material to find out what will be the position if the prosecution is allowed to continue. The apex court also held that settlement of matrimonial matters should be encouraged and one Crl.M.C. 752/2009 -2- cannot be hyper technical for the reason it will become counterproductive. From the facts in this case it is very clear that the parties have settled the matter amicably and they have no grievance against each other. Therefore it is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 Crl.P.C can be invoked. Therefore the Crl.M.C is allowed and all proceedings in C.C. 2257/2005 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is quashed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm