IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2932 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.291/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... (CRIME NO.588 OF 2004 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED 1 AND 2: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VATTAMANNIL HAJARA, D/O. KUNHI MOHAMMED ALIAS KUNHUTTY, VATTAMANNIL, ADHAVANAD AMSOM,DESOM, P.O. ADHAVANAD, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THENGASSERI ABOOBACKER, S/O. KUNHEENKUTTY, THENGASSERI, THEKKENKUTTUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. NAFEESA, W/O. KUNHEENKUTTY, THENGASSERI, THEKKENKUTTUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): STATE: ---------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 2932 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 8th September 2009 O R D E R First petitioner is the defacto complainant and second petitioner her husband and third petitioner the mother of the second petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the accused in C.C.291/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur taken cognizance on Annexure-A2 final report for the offences under Section 498 A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Both the wife, the defacto complainant and the accused jointly filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that there was a subsequent settlement of all the disputes between them and in view of the settlement, it is not necessary to proceed with the case. Petition is filed based on the decision of the Apex court in Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386). 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 2932/09 2 Along with the petition first petitioner, the defacto complainant has filed a separate affidavit stating that in view of the settlement of the matrimonial dispute she has no intention to proceed with the case and therefore the case is to be quashed. 3. As held by the Apex court in Joshi's case (supra) when a matrimonial dispute was settled amicably, it is not for the court to stand on technicalities and prevent the settlement of the matrimonial dispute. Hence, in the interest of justice the case is to be quashed as sought for. Petition is allowed. C.C.291/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur as against petitioners 2 and 3, the accused, taken cognizance on Annexure-A2 final report is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.