IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 573 of 2010 -------------------------------- [L.P. NO.34/2009 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,PATTAMBI, CRIME NO.289/2006 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION] ............ PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SHARAFUDHIN, S/O. ALIMUHAMMED, MNNATTUKULANGARA HOUSE, ALOOR AMSOM, PATTITHARA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD). RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FOUSIA, D/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 23 YEARS, PERINCHERRY HOUSE, THOZHUKKARA DESOM, ANGADI AMSOM, PATTHITHARA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010,ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO. 580/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.573 & 580 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of February,2010 ORDER Petitioner in Crl.M.C.573/2010 is the first accused and petitioners in Crl.M.C.580/2010 are accused 2 to 4 in Crime 289/2006 of Trithala Police Station. As the petitioner in Crl.M.C.573/2010 was absconding, the case as against him was split up and refiled as L.P.34/2009 and the case as against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.580/2010 was committed to the Sessions Court and are pending as S.C.574/2009. These petitions are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge contending that the entire matrimonial disputes were amicably settled with the first respondent and in view of the Crl.M.C.573 & 580 of 2010 2 settlement, 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 the entire disputes were settled amicably between the parties and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that there has been an amicable settlement of the disputes with the accused. As held by the Apex Cort in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675), when there has been an amicable settlement of the disputes, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Though an offence under section 313 IPC is also alleged, the final report itself shows that first respondent had given consent though it Crl.M.C.573 & 580 of 2010 3 is alleged that the consent was obtained by coercion. In such circumstances, when it is established that the entire disputes were settled amicably and it is clear that in view of the settlement, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitions are allowed. S.C.574/2009 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Ottapalam and L.P.34/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006