IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 907 of 2009() -------------------------------- (IN C.C. 3092/2008 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,IRINJALAKUDA IN CRIME NO. 208/08 DATED 6.10.2008 OF VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATIN, THRISSUR DISTRICT) PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. SURESH, S/O.VELAYUDAN, AGED 34 YRS, MARATHAMPILLY HOUSE,INCHAKUNDU DESOM,INCHAKUNDU.PO THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. AMMINI, W/O.VELAYUDAN, AGED 55 YRS, MARATHAMPILLY HOUSE, INCHAKUNDU DESOM, INCHANKUNDU.PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 58 YRS, MARATHAMPILLY HOUSE, INCHAKUNDU DESOM, INCHAKUNDU.PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. SOBHY.V.S,AGED 24 YRS, D/O.SATHYANARAYANAN, VALLATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERPUMKUNNU DESOM, PULLUR.PO, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA/SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.RAHUL SHENOY R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 907 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.C. 3092/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. The petitioner and others stands accused of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) r/w 34 of the IPC. The matter has been settled by the husband and wife. The wife is the 1st respondent herein has entered appearance through counsel and an affidavit is also filed to the effect that the matter has been amicably settled and it is not necessary to proceed further. They have decided to live separately and get divorce by mutual consent. The methodology to be applied in such cases has been decided by the apex court in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another [2003 (4) SCC 675]. The apex court held that while invoking powers under Section 482, the High Court can take into consideration whether any useful purpose will be served by permitting the prosecution to continue. The court also held that Crl.M.C 907/2009 -2- the settlement of matrimonial dispute should be encouraged. The apex court further held that hyper technicality should result in counter productive which will defeat the very intention of the legislature. Here is a case where the wife has settled the matter with the husband and family members and they have decided to live separately and parted as friends and had decided to live in a better harmonious peaceful atmosphere. When they have settled the matter, there is no point in asking them to proceed with the criminal prosecution. Therefore circumstances exist to quash the proceedings. Therefore the Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. 3092/2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda is quashed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm