IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 213 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.770/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR. CRIME NO.262/2006 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. SADIQUE, S/O.SHAMSUDEEN, PALAYAMCODE HOUSE, VETTICKAL DESOM, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 2. NABEESA, W/O.SHAMSUDEEN, PALAYAMCODE HOUSE, VETTICKAL DESOM, MANNUTHY THRISSUR. 3. SHYLA, D/O.SHAMSUDEEN, PALAYAMCODE HOUSE, VETTICKAL DESOM, MSNNUTHY, THRISSUR. 4. NIJAM, S/O.SULAIMAN, PUTHENKULAM HOUSE, CHITHALI POST, KOYALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), SMT.R.RAJITHA. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAHIRA, D/O.ABDUL JALEEL, 11/377, KANNARA STREET, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.K.SAJEEV . R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.213 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 21st January 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and first respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.770/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First respondent was the wife of the first petitioner. Subsequently their marriage was dissolved and first respondent got re-married. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings before the learned Magistrate contending that as entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably by the petitioners and first Crmc 213/10 2 respondent, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit that subsequently all matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and she does not intend to continue the prosecution and hence she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Petitioners are facing trial before the Magistrate for a matrimonial offence. First respondent, the de facto complainant in her statement submitted that entire matrimonial disputes were settled and she has no intention to prosecute the case further and hence she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Crmc 213/10 3 As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003 (4) SCC 675), when matrimonial offences are settled between the husband and wife, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. It is more so, when consequent to the settlement chance of a successful prosecution is very bleak. Petition is allowed. C.C.770/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.