IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 118 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.642/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ALUVA CRIME NO.250/2006 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- KUMAR @ SALIM KUMAR, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 41, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNAMKARA, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM (DIST). BY ADV. MR.ANIL K.MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. JAYASREE, D/O.KELAN, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM (DIST). R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 118 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of February,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.642/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva taken cognizance for the offences under section 495, 498A of Indian Penal Code, on Annexure A final report. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that in view of the settlement of matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and second respondent, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Annexure B affidavit stating that subsequently there has been an amicable Crl.M.C.118/2010 2 settlement of the disputes between the parties and she is now living with the petitioner and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that statement of the second respondent was recorded subsequently and the statement so recorded shows that she is now living with the petitioner and there was an amicable settlement of the matrimonial disputes and she is not intending to proceed with the case. 5. Petitioner is alleged to have committed the matrimonial offences. The affidavit filed by second respondent wife establishes that there was an amicable settlement of the matrimonial disputes and the husband and wife are now living together. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Crl.M.C.118/2010 3 Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution when the matrimonial disputes are settled and the husband and wife are living together. Petition is allowed. Cognizance taken on Annexure A final report in C.C.642/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006