IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4286 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- [CC.NO.545/2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. MUHAMMED SHAFI, S/O. KUNJEED HAJI, KAMBRAN KUTTOOR NORTH, A.R.NAGAR. 2. KAMBRAN KUNJEED HAJI, KAMBRAN KUTTOOR NORTH, A.R.NAGAR. 3. NAFEESA, W/O. KUNJEED HAJI, KAMBRAN KUTTOOR NORTH, A.R.NAGAR. 4. ABDUL SAMAD, S/O. KUNJEED HAJI, KAMBRAN KUTTOOR NORTH, A.R.NAGAR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 31. 2. SMT. NADIYA, D/O. ALAVI, ERAMBATHIL KAKKULATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O.OLAKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306. (LIMITS OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION). R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.4286 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the defacto complainant in C.C.545 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First petitioner is the husband and second respondent his wife. Petitioners two to four are the in-laws of the second respondent. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings contending that in view of Annexure-3 settlement of the matrimonial disputes between the second respondent and the petitioners, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with the petitioners and in view of the amicable settlement she has no objection in quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Crl.M.C No.4286 OF 2010 2 4. As held by the Apex Court in B.S Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another(2003 (4) SCC 675) when the matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Affidavit filed by the second respondent and Annexure-3 agreement establish that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with the petitioners. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.549 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangady is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. mns