IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 562 of 2010 -------------------------------- [C.C. NO.245/09 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARGOD, CRIME NO.908/2008 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION] PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 & 3: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. B. GANESH KUMAR, S/O. PANDURANGA, MALLIGEMADHU, CHAMUNDI KUNNU, CHITHARI GRAMAM. 2. SADHANA, W/O. NARAYANA, NEAR KALLIYANGAD TEMPLE, MEEPUGURI, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LATHASHI, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. MANAMOHAN RAJ, RESIDING AT KOTTAKKANNI HOUSE, NEAR JAIMATHA SCHOOL, KOTTAKKANI, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARGOD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 562 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of February,2010 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 3 in C.C.245/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod taken cognizance for the offence under section 498A, 406, 506(i) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure I final report. Second respondent is the de facto complainant and the wife of the first petitioner. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the entire matrimonial disputes were settled evidenced by Annexure II agreement 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 an affidavit stating that the Crl.M.C.562/2010 2 entire disputes were settled amicably and in view of the settlement, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second accused is no no more and as the entire matrimonial disputes were settled, the case may be quashed. 5. 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, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. The affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that there was an amicable settlement of the disputes. In the circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.245/2009 on the file Crl.M.C.562/2010 3 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006