IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4825 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CMP.3871/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- NASEEMA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. MUKODAN RAYINKUTTY, VATTAKANDATHIL HOUSE, MUTATHANOOR, THRIPPNACHI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAIN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RASAK, POOLAVEETTIL HOUSE, MANJERI, VETTEKODE ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 121. 2. ABDUL RASAK, AGED 55 YEARS, F/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, POOLAVEETTIL HOUSE, MANJERI, VETTEKODE ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 121. 3. KADEEJA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL RASAK, POOLAVEETTIL HOUSE, MANJERI, VETTEKODE ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 121. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4825 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Crime No.370/2008 of Arecode Police Station was registered on Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the petitioner before Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure against first respondent, the husband and respondents 2 and 3, his parents, for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexre-A3 final report was submitted, based on which cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as C.C.No.11/2009. Wife, the defacto complainant, herself filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that she has settled entire matrimonial disputes with respondents 1 to 3 and in view of the settlement, when she is living with her husband cordially, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and therefore, the case is to be quashed. CRMC 4825/10 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when the matrimonial disputes are settled amicably and husband and wife are living together under one roof, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution. It is the wife herself who approached this Court stating that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with her husband and in-laws and she is now residing with her husband cordially and to maintain the cordial relationship, it is necessary to quash the proceedings. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.11/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri is quashed. 9th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv