IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 852 of 2010() ------------------------------------ LP.121/2009 FROM CC.671/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, CHENGANNUR. CRIME NO.186/2007 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- KUSHI, SREEJA BHAVANAM, PUTHUPPALLY NORTH MURI, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), MR.A.R.DILEEP, MR.GEORGE RAJU, SMT.SURYA SASI. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEEPA, DAKSHINA HOUSE, KARAKKADU MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R2 BY ADV. MR.JACOB P.ALEX. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.852 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 11th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.671/2007 now pending as L.P.121/2009 on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur. Second respondent filed Annexure-1 complaint which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) and crime No.186/2007 of Chengannur police station, registered for the offences under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-2 final report and Annexure-3 final report was filed. Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 498 A against the petitioner. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code Crmc 852/10 2 of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled and consequent to the settlement, she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. As held by the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes were settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, standing on technicalities. Crmc 852/10 3 Affidavit filed by the wife, second respondent, establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. L.P.121/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.