IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2974 of 2009 ------------------------------- CC.160/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA (CRIME NO.805/2007 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION) ......................................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- SAIDALI, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHA, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, ANAMANGAD, PALOLIPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMEEMA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, EZHUPOTHIYIL VEEDU, PANAMANNA, ANCHAM MILE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PERINTALMANNA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2974 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14th September 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.160/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna. Prosecution case is that four accused committed offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal code. As accused 3 and 4 were absconding, case as against them was split up re-filed as C.C.160/2009. Accused 1 and 2 were tried and under Annexure-B judgment they were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against him contending that in view of the order of acquittal as well as settlement of the dispute with first respondent, the defacto complainant, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitioner is brother of the husband of first respondent. Annexure-B judgment shows that accused 1 and 2 were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. Annexure-F affidavit filed by first CRMC 2974/09 2 respondent establish that there was a complete settlement of all the disputes with the accused and she has no objection for quashing the case in view of the settlement. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) when there was a settlement of all the matrimonial disputes between the parties ,it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and cause hurdle on the matrimonial settlement. In the interest of justice, it is not necessary to continue the proceedings as against the petitioner when consequent to the settlement co-accused were acquitted and in view of the settlement, there is no chance for a successful prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.160/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.