IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 840 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.519/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ---------------------- MUHAMMED SHEREEF.V, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. P.C. ALI @ KUNJALI, VELLIKKOTH HOUSE, VAZHAPALLY ROAD, P.O,. KUNNAMKAI, WEST ELERI , BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K. MUMTAZ, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. K. MUHAMMED KUNHI, POOTHAMKANDAM, P.O. CHANADUKKAM, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR ADV. SMT.CISSY MATHEWS FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------------- CRL.M.C. No. 840 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C. No.519 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian penal Code. Annexure-A complaint was originally filed by the first respondent against seven accused. It was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. By Annexure-B final report, charge was submitted only against the petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken and the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that entire matrimonial disputes were amicably settled. Annexure-C agreement in support of the settlement is also produced. 2. The first respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, she has no grievance against the petitioner. In addition Crl. M.Appln. No.1275 of 2010, a joint petition was filed by the petitioner and first respondent together Crl.M.C. No.840/2010 2 stating that as they have settled the disputes, the case is to be quashed. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. When matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue prosecution. Annexure-B agreement, the affidavit filed by the first respondent and the joint petition filed by the husband petitioner and first respondent wife establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. 5. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003 (4) SCC 675), when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and to continue the prosecution Petition is allowed. C.C. No.519 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (JUDGE) vps Crl.M.C. No.840/2010 3