IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3102 of 2009 -------------------------------- CC.73/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR ......................................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REJITHA P.R., AGED 27 YEARS,D/O.RAJANKUTTY,PUKKUKANDATHIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM MURI,ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. PREM KUMAR, AGED 3 YEARS,S/O.RAVEENDRAN, KAVILLETHU VEEDU,VENMONY P.O.,VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENMONI,ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tga M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3102 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 24th September 2009 O R D E R First petitioner is the de facto complainant, the wife and second petitioner is the accused, the husband in C.C.73/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-1 charge against second petitioner. This petition is jointly filed by first petitioner de facto complainant and second petitioner the accused to quash the proceedings contending that the entire disputes were settled amicably in between them and in the light of the decisions of the Apex court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Annexure-2 agreement entered into by the petitioners and submitted before the Family court, Thiruvalla where proceedings initiated by first petitioner against second petitioner was pending CRMC 3102/09 2 and Annexure-3 receipt to show that the amount as provided under Annexure-2 was paid by the second petitioner and received by first petitioner is also produced. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The petition is filed to quash the proceedings jointly by the accused and the de facto complainant stating that the entire matrimonial disputes were settled. Annexures-2 and 3 establish the settlement. When matrimonial disputes were settled and the wife and husband jointly filed the petition, as held by the Apex court in Joshi's case (supra), it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities. Interest of justice warrants to quash the proceedings. Petition is allowed. C.C.73/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.