IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3528 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CC.715/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUED NOS.1-4 ------------------------------------------ 1. SIRAJUDEEN THANGAL @ SYED SIRAJUDEEN THANGAL, S/O.MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL, BEHIND CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. IMMATTY @ ATTA BEEVI, W/O.MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, DO. DO. 3. MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, DO. DO. 4. SAHEERA, D/O.MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, DO. DO. BY ADV. MR.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ISABUL SHERIN, D/O.MOHAMMEDALI, PARIS GARDENS, KADUKKAMKUNNU, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3528 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd November 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.715/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I complaint. Second respondent is the wife of first petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes between the petitioners and second respondent were settled amicably and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Crmc 3528/09 2 Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-1 final report shows that petitioners are being tried for matrimonial offence. Affidavit filed by second respondent establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes were settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities, as consequent to the settlement there cannot be a successful prosecution. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.715/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.