IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2576 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------ CC.966/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM ............................................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SONIA,D/O.RAPHEL,AGED 32 YEARS, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE,MUTTINAKAM,VARAPPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THADEVOOSS ANTONY,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY,CARPENTER,KARALUTHARA,VADUTHALA (NEAR BOAT JETTY). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R1. SRI.P.K.SAJEEVAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC.CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2576 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 966/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam. Second respondent is the accused in that case. Based on a complaint filed by the petitioner before Judicial First Class Magistrate, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, Annexure- A3 FIR was registered and after investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was submitted alleging that second respondent committed offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that there was a complete settlement of the disputes with the second respondent and O.P.No.430/2003 filed by petitioner against second respondent and his father before Family court, Ernakulam was allowed ex parte and petitioner has no grievance against second respondent and in view of the CRMC 2576/09 2 settlement, it is not, in the interest of justice, to continue the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that statement recorded from the petitioner subsequently establish that there was a settlement of all the disputes with the second respondent. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when matrimonial disputes are settled between the parties, it is not, in the interest of justice, to continue the prosecution, when chance of a successful prosecution is bleak and continuation of the proceedings would only result in waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C. No.966/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam as against second respondent is quashed. 14th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv