IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3996 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CC.NO.116/2006 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL KALAM @ SHAMEER, S/O.HAMZA, HAJARAKATH HOUSE, VELIYAMKOTTU, PATTHUMURI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. HAMZA, HAJARAKATH HOUSE, VELIYAMKOTTU, PATTHUMURI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. BIYYUMMA, W/O.HAMZA, HAJARAKATH HOUSE, VELIYAMKOTTU, PATTHUMURI,PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MAIMOONATH, D/O.MOIDEEN KOYA, CHAKKUM KADAVU, AMBALATHAZHAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR R2 BY ADV. MR.RAJAN KUDUMBATHIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3996 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the defacto complainant in C.C.No.116/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First petitioner is the husband and second respondent the wife. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and jointly filed Crl.M.Appl.No.6821/2009 with the petitioners stating that they have settled all the disputes and the case happened to be filed due to some sudden anger, on a difference of opinion and consequent to the settlement of the disputes, the case is to be CRMC 3996/09 2 quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-A1 final report shows that offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature and it is a matrimonial dispute. Joint statement filed by the second respondent with the petitioners establishes that there has been an amicable settlement of all the matrimonial disputes and in view of the settlement, second respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when there has been a settlement of all the matrimonial disputes, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and proceed with the prosecution. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.No.116/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode is quashed. 17th December, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv