IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3785 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CC.265/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.855/2006 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- HABEEB ABDULLA, S/O.ABDULLA, PANNIPPARA, VIDYANAGAR, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. LAREEFA, D/O.C.A. RAHIM, RESIDING AT VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SALIM. R2 BY ADV. MR.SAINU B. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3785 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 24th day of November,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the husband and second respondent his wife, who are respectively the accused and de facto complainant in C.C.265/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod taken cognizance for an offence under section 498A on Annexure I final report. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled between the petitioner and second respondent amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit to the effect that entire matrimonial disputes were settled between the parties amicably and Annexure 3 agreement was entered into and in view of the settlement she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public prosecutor were Crl.M.C.3785/2009 2 heard. 4. Annexure 2 affidavit with Annexure 3 agreement shows that entire matrimonial disputes were settled between the husband and wife. In view of the settlement of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, as held by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003(4) SCC (675) no purpose will be served by standing on technicalities and insisting for continuing the prosecution when ultimately consequent to the settlement the chance of successful prosecution is very bleak. Petition is allowed. C.C.265/07 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006