IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1711 of 2009 ---------------------------------- (L.P.NO.37/2006 OF THE JFCM COURT-II, MANJERI IN CR.NO.387/2002 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED MUSLIYAR, AGED 47 YEARS, AYINELIL HOUSE, S/O.UNNEENKUTTY, KALLIDUMBU, KIDANGAZHI, KARUVAMBRAM PO, MANJERI. 2. KUNNATH AMINA BEEVI, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.IBRAHIM, AYINELIL HOUSE, KALLIDUMBU, KIDANGAZHI, KARUVAMBRAM P.O., MANJERI. BY ADV.MR.P.SAMSUDIN. RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1711 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife. After recording the statement of second petitioner alleging that first petitioner committed the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, Crime No.387/2002 of Manjeri Police Station was registered. Based on Annexure A2 final report, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence in C.C.No.152/2002. On failure of the first petitioner to appear before the Court, the case was removed to the register of long pending cases and is now pending as L.P.No.37/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Manjeri. This petition is filed jointly by the first petitioner, accused and second petitioner, defacto complainant, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings stating that subsequently they have settled all their disputes amicably Crl.M.C.No.1711/2009 -2- and they are now living together and in such circumstances there is no necessity for the second petitioner to proceed with the case. Along with the petition Annexure A3 agreement entered by the petitioners in a non-judicial stamp paper attested by the Notary is also produced. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when the husband and wife are living together and first petitioner is the accused in a matrimonial offence and that dispute was settled with second petitioner wife, there is no necessity to continue the proceedings and thereby jeopardize the matrimonial life. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC). 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that now petitioners 1 and 2 are living together pursuant to Annexure A3 agreement. Crl.M.C.No.1711/2009 -3- 5. When the offence is only a matrimonial offence and husband and wife later settled their disputes amicably and the husband and wife are living together, it is not in the interest of justice to jeopardize that settlement standing on technicalities as held by the Apex Court in Joshy's case (supra). In the interest of justice, L.P.No.37/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Manjeri in Crime No.387/2002 of Manjeri Police Station is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr