IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4 of 2011() ---------------------- LP.26/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA CC NO.639/2009 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- RENJITH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, RAVI NIVAS, KARUVATTA NORTH PO, NORTH OF KANNUKALI PALAM, KARUVATTA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT (CW1) & STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. SUNU ANNA MATHEW, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.RENJITH, KANDATHIL HOUSE, THONDANKULANGARA WARD, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O. 688516, FROM KARIMPANNOOR, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SHRI MOHAMMED NIYAS V.P. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. ORDER At a time when petitioner and respondent No.1, husband and wife were at loggerheads the latter initiated criminal proceedings against the former for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by filing a private complaint. On forwarding that complaint for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Alappuzha North Police registered Crime No.215 of 2009 and after investigation submitted final report accusing petitioner of commission of the said offence. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent No.1 have settled their dispute, reunited and they are now living together. In the circumstances it is prayed that criminal proceedings may be quashed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and learned Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 3. It is seen from Annexure-A3, affidavit sworn by respondent No.1 that the dispute has been settled between the parties and that now petitioner and respondent No.1 are residing together at Dubai. Respondent No.1 has come to her native place for delivery. She has no objection in quashing the proceedings against petitioner pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. Crl.M.C.No.4/2011 2 4. Now that parties have settled their dispute and decided to live together and are accordingly living together, to maintain the harmonious relationship between parties and since there is no possibility of the prosecution having a successful end, it is only appropriate that the proceedings are not pursued. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-A2, final report in C.C.No.639 of 2009 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha pending as L.P.No.26 of 2010 and all proceedings thereon are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks