IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3353 of 2009() ------------------------- C.C.227/09 OF Judicial First Class Magistrate PATTAMBI PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- ABDUL ILLIYAS @ BABU, S/O.ABOOBACKER, POOVALIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KOONAMMUCHI POST, KAPPUR, VIA KUMARANELLUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SAFIA, D/O.AHAMMED, VALIYAPEEDIKKAL HOUSE, VATTAMKULAM SUKAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.C.KIRAN FOR R2 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3353 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 19th October 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.227/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 406 and 498 A of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-B final report submitted after investigation on receipt of Annexure-A complaint filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent de facto complainant were settled amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed Annexure-D affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled and Crmc 3353/09 2 O.P.293/2007 and M.C.123/2007 which were pending between the parties before the family court were also settled and consequent to the settlement, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-B final report shows that the allegation raised against the petitioner is that he committed matrimonial offences. Affidavit filed by the second respondent with the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents as well as Annexure-C copy of the settlement, makes it clear that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. 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 were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and cause hurdle on the settlement of the matrimonial disputes. When it is clear that matrimonial disputes were settled, even if petitioner Crmc 3353/09 3 is directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, there is no chance of a successful prosecution and it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.227/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.