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. 4002 of 2010() ------------------- CRIME NO. 240/2010 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE ............................................. PETITIONER / ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- 1. ARIF M.V., S/O.MAMMEDKOYA, CHERATTUMMAL (H), PUTHURMADAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. FATHIMA, W/O.MAMMEDKOYA, CHERATTUMMAL (H), PUTHURMADAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAFEENA, D/O.MUHAMMED, ARIPPATTAMMAL (H), ANDONA, PARAPPANPOYIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT – 673573. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN KUDUMBATHIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4002 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in Crime No.240/2010 of Thamarassery Police Station, registered under Annexure- A1 FIR, for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A of Indian Penal Code on the first information statement recorded from the second respondent. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and further proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes between the parties were settled amicably, evidenced by Annexure-A2 agreement and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint statement along with the petitioners stating that entire disputes between them were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were CRMC 4002/10 2 heard. 4. Annexure-A2 agreement establishes that entire matrimonial disputes between the first petitioner husband and second respondent wife were settled amicably. Second petitioner is the mother-in-law of the second respondent. The joint statement filed by the second respondent along with the petitioners establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, second respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when the matrimonial disputes were settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. Crime No.240/2010 of Thamarassery Police Station and further proceedings are quashed. 30th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv