IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4038 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CC.969/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- VINOD, S/O.DURAISWAMI, AGED 38 YEARS, THANNIRPANTHAL, CHERUTRIKOVIL PARAMBU, VENGERI (PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SRI.R.MANIKANTAN. RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANKARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. ANITHA, D/O.K.S. DEVADAS, AGED 29 YEARS, CHEMMANI PARAMBU VEEDU, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.G.BABITHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4038 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 4th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the husband and third respondent, the wife. They are respectively accused and de facto complainant in C.C.969/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Palakkad taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-II final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Mankara Police Station. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and they are now living cordially together and it is not in the interest of justice to Crmc 4038/10 2 continue the prosecution. 2. Third respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint petition with the petitioner stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and she is living with the petitioner and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, third respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Joint statement filed by the petitioner and third respondent establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably between the husband and wife and they are now living together under one roof. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC Crmc 4038/10 3 675), when matrimonial disputes were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.969/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Palakkad is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.