IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 821 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.898/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): A1 TO A3 ----------------------- 1. SUDHEER, AGED 32 YRS,(A1) S/O.MOHAMMED ILLIAS, SUPLHIA MANZIL,VALANCHERRY, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAHIDA BEEVI, AGED 52 YEARS,(A2) D/O.KADEEJA BEEVI, RESIDING AT -DO- , -DO- 3. SUBAIR, AGED 50 YRS, (A3), S/O.MOHAMMED SALI, RESIDING AT -DO-, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUHAILA, AGED 24 YRS,(CW1) D/O.S.M.RASHEED, FAIZAL MANZIL, CHOOTTAYIL, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 821 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.C. 898/2005 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. The petitioners are facing accusation under Section 109, 498(A) and r/w. 34 of the I.P.C. The matter has been settled between the defacto complainant and the petitioners. The wife has filed an affidavit through a counsel and it is submitted that they have decided to compromise the case and that the husband had divorced her and both of them have re-married and they are leading a peaceful married life. In the light of the dictum laid down in B.S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & another [2003 (4) SCC 675] the apex court held that the settlement of matrimonial disputes are to be entertained and that hyper technical view would be counter productive. I feel this is a fit case where the said decision has to be applied. Since the parties have separated themselves and had remarried and leading a peaceful matrimonial life, it will cause Crl.M.C. 821/2009 -2- embarrassment if the proceedings are to be continued. Therefore it is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C can be invoked. Therefore the Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. 898/2005 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal is quashed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm