IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1124 of 2009() --------------------------------- CC.306/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR CRIME NO.94/2006 OF ELOOR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ------------------------------ 1. TITAN (38), S/O.PAILY, MUKKATH HOUSE, KOTTOTIMUKKU, MANJUMMEL, KOCHI. 2. SHALI (30), S/O.PAILY, MUKKATH HOUSE, KOTTOTTIMUKKU, MANJUMMEL, KOCHI. 3. CRISTY (29), S/O.ANTONY, MUKKATH HOUSE, KOTTOTTIMUKKU, MANJUMMEL, KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.SUBAL J.PAUL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.D.DEVASSY (43) @ BABU, S/O.DEVASSY, KUNNATHUPARAMBIL, MANJUMMEL, KOCHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV..K.G.SARATHKUMAR FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 1124 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 94/2006 of the Eloor Police Station, Ernakulam. It is a case whereby the accused therein are charge sheeted under Sections 324, 451, 506(1) & 34 of the IPC. It is a compliant filed by the husband against the brother-in law and others. The dispute is only on account of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. Now the wife as well as the husband had settled the matter and decided to live separately and thereby filing petition for divorce. 2. Both of them were present before the court and they are represented by lawyers. It is submitted by them that they did not want to continue the matrimonial disputes or the prosecution of this case. Therefore the modality is to be adopted as per the dictum laid down in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another [2003 (4) SCC 675]. The Apex Court held that while invoking the power under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C, the Crl.M.C. 1124/2009 -2- High Court is also entitled to look into the possible end result of the prosecution. The Apex Court also held that there should be encouragement of settlement of matrimonial disputes and further cautioned that hyper technicality should not be permitted to result in counter productivity. Now here is a case where everything started on account of the matrimonial dispute and the husband and wife had settled all the matrimonial disputes and decided to live separately and thereby put an end to the relationship. They want to have a peaceful and calm atmosphere that has been attained by the said settlement. At this stage if the litigation or prosecution is to be continued, it will cause embarrassment and really would result into miscarriage of justice. So applying the dictum relied upon, I invoke the power under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C and quash all further proceedings in C.C. 306/2006 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, N. Paravur. The Crl.M.C is allowed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm