IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1935 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.269/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... (CRIME NO.728/08 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED PERSONS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNAN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 41, KOLOTHUTHUNDYIL HOUSE, AMBELIPADOM ROAD, PONNURUNNI, ERNAKULAM. 2. OMANA, W/O.SANKARAN, AGED 61, KOLOTHUTHUNDYIL HOUSE, AMBELIPADOM ROAD, PONNURUNNI, ERNAKULAM. 3. SANKARAN, W/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 66, KOLOTHUTHUNDYIL HOUSE, AMBELIPADOM ROAD, PONNURUNNI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. NIRMALA, W/O.PRASANNAN, AGED 33, KOLOTHUTHUNDYIL HOUSE, AMBELIPADOM ROAD, PONNURUNNI, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. MR.T.JEEJAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1935 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 24th day of June,2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.269/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. Second respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. The prosecution case is that because of the enemity of petitioners with the second respondent and in furtherance of their common intention to cause grievous hurt to second respondent, on the night of 27.7.2008 at about 8.15 p.m, they attacked second respondent and beat her and inflicted grievous injury and thereby committed offences under section 323,324,326,341, 506 (ii) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal case pending against petitioners contending that the disputes of the petitioners with the second respondent were subsequently resolved amicably and both the husband and wife are now living together and in such circumstance there is no necessity to prosecute the case further. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel Crl.M.C.1935/2009 2 and also filed a joint statement along with the petitioners reiterating the case that there was a settlement of all the disputes with the petitioners and second respondent is now living happily with the first petitioner and she does not want to proceed with the case further and in such circumstance the case is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. It is clear from the joint statement as well as the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, second respondent and Public Prosecutor that subsequent to the incident the dispute of the petitioners with the second respondent were settled and first petitioner husband and second respondent wife are living together. In such circumstance, when chance of a successful prosecution is very bleak, it is not in the interest of justice, to proceed with the case further. Petition is allowed. C.C.269/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006