IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3869 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.462/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. KAVAYIKKARAN ISMAIL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.NAFEESA KAVAYIKKARAN, RESIDING AT MULLOT KADAVU HOUSE, 'LIGHT AND SOUND TRACK, TRIKARIPUR, MANIYANODI P.O., TRIKARIPUR. 2. K.NAFEESA, W/O.IBRAHIM, MULLOT KADAVU HOUSE, UDINOOR AMSOM DESOM, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. A.G.MAHAMOOD, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, ANJILLATHU HOUSE, UDINOOR AMSOM DESOM, HOSDURG TALUK. 4. KHADEEJA, D/O.NAFFEESA, MULLOTTUKADAVU HOUSE, UDINOOR AMSOM DESOM, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. JAMEELA, DO.NAFFEESA, MULLOTTUKADAVU HOUSE, UDINOOR AMSOM DESOM, HOSDURG TALUK. 6. KUNHAYISHA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.MOIMOODU, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS CRMC. NO.3869/2010 RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- 1. ODIYIL VADAKKEPURAYIL HASHIDA, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.ISMAIL, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, KAVVAYI DESOM, P.O.KAVVAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------- Crl.M.C No.3869 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and 1st respondent the defacto complainant in C.C No.462/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C on Annexure A2 final report submitted by S.I. of Police, Payyannur Police Station. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably including M.C Nos.21/09 and 30/2009 pending before Family Court and consequent to the settlement, first respondent has no grievance against the petitioners and she has no objection for quashing the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were Crl.M.C No.3869 of 2010 2 heard. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that statement of the first respondent recorded subsequently shows that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with the petitioners. 5. As held by the Apex Court in B.S Joshi and others Vs. State Haryana and another (2003 (4) SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably and consequent to the settlement no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution. The affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with first petitioner husband and petitioners 2 to 6 the in laws. Petition is allowed. C.C No.462 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE ma