IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 656 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.16/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- AHRAF, S/O.BAVA, AGED 36 YEARS, CHANDANAKKATTIL HOUSE, POOKKAYIL BAZAR POST, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR. 2. HASEENA, D/O.KUNJIMOHAMMED, KUMATTIYIL HOUSE, PERUNTHALLOOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB ADV. SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 656 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is field to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. 16/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur. The petitioner is accused of having committed offence under Section 323 and 498 A of the IPC. An affidavit is filed before this court jointly by the husband and wife to the effect that the dispute between them stands settled and they are living together for the last one year and it is not necessary to proceed with the above case. The methodology in such type of cases had been decided by the apex court in the decision reported in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [2003 (4) SCC 675]. The apex court held that: “While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.” Crl.M.C. 656/2009 -2- The apex court further held that: “The hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which his provision was added”. Now turning to the facts of the case that the husband and wife had settled the matter amicably and they are living together under the same roof and there is no point in directing them to litigate which will destroy the harmonious atmosphere created by the joint living. Therefore it is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 Crl.P.C can be invoked. Therefore the Crl.M.C is allowed and all the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur in CC 16/2008 is quashed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm