IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4539 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CC.748/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. DEPAK ALEX PANICKER,S/O. ALEXANDER PANICKER, PALAVILAYIL DEEPANJALI, MANJADI.P.O., TIRUVALLA. 2. ALEXANDER PANICKER, PALAVILAYIL DEEPANJALI, MANJADI.P.O., THIRUVALLA. 3. SOSSAN PANICKER, PALAVILAYIL DEEPANJALI,MANJADI.P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ANILA VARGHESE, D/O. M.VARGHESE, IDATHUMPADICKAL, EDAMON. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM R2 BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.JAFARKHAN, SMT.MERIL MUTHU P.JOHN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.4539 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 25th day of November,2010 ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.748/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate , Punalur taken cognizance for the offence under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure A2 F.I.R. First petitioner is the husband and second respondent the wife. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint petition along with Crl.M.C.4539/2010 2 the petitioners stating that second respondent has settled all the matrimonial disputes amicably and consequent to the settlement she has no objection for quashing the proceedings and therefore the congizance taken is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. As declared by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution. Joint petition filed by second respondent along with the petitioners establish that second respondent has settled all the matrimonial disputes. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Crl.M.C.4539/2010 3 Petition is allowed. C.C. No.748/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006