IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1801 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.189/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO.194/2008 IF THE PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. FAIZAL,S/O.ALAVI HAJI,PARAKOTTUPALATH HOUSE, VELLILA, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SUHRA, W/O.ABDURAHIMAN, PARAKOTTUPALATH HOUSE,VELLILA, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI - 31. 2. SHAMEELA P.D/O.ABDUL RASHEED, PULIYODAN HOUSE, KODASSERY, CHEMBRASSERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1801 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 10th June 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 and 3 in Crime No.194/2008 of Pandikkad police station. Offence alleged is under Sections 498A read with Section 34 of Indian penal Code. Second respondent is the defacto complainant. Accused 2 and 4 were earlier tried by the learned Magistrate in C.C.42/2009, after the case as against petitioners were split up and re-filed. Under Annexure-B judgment accused 2 and 4 were acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the dispute with second respondent was settled ,evidenced by Annexure-C affidavit of second respondent sworn before a Notary and therefore no purpose will be served by directing to undergo the ordeal of a trial. Second respondent is represented by a counsel and the learned counsel submitted that the matter has been settled and in view of the settlement second respondent is not CRMC 1801/09 2 interested in further prosecuting the case and there is no objection for quashing the case. 3. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor, it is clear that though original accused 2 and 4 were acquitted by the learned Magistrate in C.C.42/2009, on the evidence let in. Now all the dispute between first petitioner/husband and second respondent/wife were resolved. In view of the settlement second respondent is not interested in further prosecuting the case. Considering the fact that the offence alleged is a matrimonial offence, in view of the settlement and in the light of decision of the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. Petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.189/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna as against petitioners is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.