IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2390 of 2009 -------------------------------- CC.38/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR CRIME NO. 472/2005 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION .......................................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ JOSEPH, AGED 49, S/O.VARGHESE, AKKAPPILLY HOUSE, PATTANAM KARA, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MERCY, AGED 45, W/O.JOSEPH, AKKAPPILLY HOUSE, PATTANAM KARA, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. VINOD SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2390 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.38/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, North Paravur. Second respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Based on Annexure-A2 final report, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that there was a settlement of the disputes between the husband and wife and they are now living together and second respondent has no grievance against the petitioner and so, there is no necessity to continue and proceedings and therefore, it is to be quashed. Annexure-A3 affidavit of the second respondent is also filed along with the petition, wherein, second respondent reiterated that there was a settlement and they are now living together and therefore, she is not willing to prosecute the petitioner further. CRMC 2390/09 2 2.Second respondent appeared through a counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. From Annexure-A3 affidavit of the second respondent as well as the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and second respondent, it is absolutely clear that the disputes between the husband and wife were amicably settled and they are now living together. In such circumstances, it is not, in the interest of justice, to continue the criminal proceedings. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675) when matrimonial disputes were settled and husband and wife are living under one roof, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and to continue the proceedings. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C. No.38/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, North Paravur as against the petitioner is quashed. 27th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv