IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3087 of 2009 -------------------------------- CC.391/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY ............................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ULAHANNAN @ THANKACHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, MANGALATH PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANAD NORTH, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 308. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LEELA @ K.T.ELIYAMMA, AGED 57 YEARS, MANGALATH PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVANKULAM, PIN - 682 305. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI SRI.BENNY VARGHESE FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 3087 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 24th September 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.391/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498 A, 323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 final report. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 final report as well as the proceedings before the learned Magistrate contending that there was a complete amicable settlement of all the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and his wife, the second respondent. Annexure-A2 joint statement is also filed by the petitioner and the second respondent stating that the entire disputes were resolved amicably and second respondent has no intention to proceed with the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 3087/09 2 3. Annexure-A1 final report shows that prosecution case is that during the period from 1981 to 4/2/2009 petitioner treated the second respondent with cruelty as proceedings were pending before the Family court, Ernakulam and Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Kolencherry as against the husband and on 4/2/2009 at about 9.45 p.m petitioner threatened the second respondent that she will be murdered and he caused hurt to her and thereby committed the offences. Annexure-A2 joint statement establishes that entire matrimonial disputes between them were settled. In such circumstances, as held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. When consequent to the settlement successful prosecution is very bleak and it would also jeopardise the settlement and result in avoidable unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Petition is allowed. C.C.391/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.