IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2531 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.132/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, KUZHANGARAVEEDU, THONIYAPARAMBU, PUTHIYANKAM, THRIPPALUR, ALATHUR. BY ADVS. MR.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI MR.P.K.NIJOY, SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL. RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SANDHYA B., D/O. BALAN, CHAMAPARAMBIL, PARUVASSERY, ALATHUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.PRABITHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2531 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.132/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Alathur. Originally, he was the first accused in C.C.No.435/2006. Case against the five accused was that they committed offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the defacto complainant and wife of the petitioner. Under Annexure-II judgment, learned Magistrate, after splitting up the case as against the petitioner, acquitted accused 2 to 5 finding them not guilty of the offence. Case as against the petitioner was re- filed as C.C.No.132/2009. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure to quash the case as against him contending that all the disputes with the petitioner and second respondent were settled amicably and therefore, it CRMC 2531/09 2 is not, in the interest of justice, to proceed with the trial. 2. Crl.M.Appl.No.4304/2009 is jointly filed by the petitioner and second respondent to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner contending that the matter has been settled amicably. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-II judgment in C.C.No.435/2006 establishes that accused 2 to 5 were found not guilty of the offence and acquitted after the second respondent and her father, the only witness examined, turned hostile deposing that all the disputes with the accused were settled. The joint statement establishes that there was an amicable settlement of all the disputes with the petitioner and second respondent. In such circumstances, it is not, in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. As held by the Apex Court in CRMC 2531/09 3 B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when there is a settlement of the matrimonial disputes and there is no possibility of a successful prosecution, interest of justice does not warrant continuation of the proceedings. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.No.132/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Alathur as against the petitioner is quashed. 13th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv