IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3238 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CC.278/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.M.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, THALAPPANA HOUSE, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, CRIME/FIR NO.116 OF 2006 NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SINDHU, AGED YEARS, D/O.IMBICHIKUTTY, KOLATH HOUSE, PUTTEKKAD, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZAR R2 BY ADV. MR.SHAJI M.V. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3238 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.278/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled between the parties and Annexure-3 agreement was entered into before the Lok Adalath and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Crl.M.A.6083/2009 jointly with petitioner stating that following mediation efforts by this court and Lok Adalath, all disputes between petitioner and second respondent were finally settled under Annexures-1 and 2 and in view of the settlement the case is to be quashed. Crmc 3238/09 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. When matrimonial disputes were settled between the parties, as evidenced by the joint statement filed by petitioner husband and second respondent wife as well as by Annexures-1 and 2 settlements arrived at by the parties ,it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675). In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.278/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.