IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 926 of 2010() ----------------------------------- (CRIME NO.384 OF 2007 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) ........... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- SUNU KUMAR, RAGATHARA, KARUMALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.384/2007 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION) 2. SILJI P.B., W/O.SUNUKUMAR,PADANNAYIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 926 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent is his wife the defacto complainant in Crime No.384/2007 of Palarivattom Police Station registered for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian penal Code, on Annexure-1 FIR. After completing the investigation, Annexure-2 final report was submitted. It was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. The second respondent filed a petition under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation. The learned Magistrate directed further investigation. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending contending that entire matrimonial disputes were amicably settled and in view of settlement, it is not in the interest of Justice to continue the prosecution. 2 The second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, she has no grievance against the petitioner and she has no objection in quashing the Crl.M.C. No.926/2010 2 proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. 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 are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and to continue the prosecution. The affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that all matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. In such circumstances, the petition is allowed. Crime No.384/2007 of Palarivattom Police Station and all pending proceedings on the FIR are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (JUDGE) vps Crl.M.C. No.926/2010 3 Crl.M.C. No.926/2010 4