IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4006 of 2010 () ------------------------- (CRIME NO.347/2007 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION CC.497/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- MUHAMMADALI, S/O.MUHAMMED, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHENAKKAD, VATTAPARAMB. BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.V.C.SARATH RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RABIYA, D/O.HASSANKUTTY, AZHIYUVALAPPIL HOUSE, THALAKKAPPU P.O., CHATHANANGADI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.SEEMA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4006 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the third accused in C.C.No. 923/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First respondent is the defacto complainant and the wife of the first accused. Petitioner is the brother of the first accused. Second accused is the mother of the first accused. As petitioner was absconding, case against him was split up and re-filed as C.C. No.497/2010. Accused 1 and 2 were tried and acquitted under Annexure-B judgment, as the prosecution, including the first respondent, did not adduce any evidence against the accused. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that as the entire disputes were settled CRMC 4006/10 2 amicably, 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 she has settled all the disputes with the accused, including the petitioner and consequent to the settlement, she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-B judgment shows that accused 1 and 2, the husband and the mother-in-law of the first respondent, were already acquitted after trial. The affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that she has settled all the disputes with the accused, the brother-in-law also. As is clear from Annexure-B judgment, even if petitioner is directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, no purpose will CRMC 4006/10 3 be served in view of the evidence already adduced in C.C.No.923/2007 and also due to the settlement of the disputes by the first respondent with the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.497/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram is quashed. 30th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv