IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4941 of 2010() -------------------- CRIME NO. 295/2002 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION .................. PETITIONERS / ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O. KUNHIMOIDEENKUTTY, MALIYEKKAL, PUTHUKATT HOUSE, VELIMUKKU POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAMLA, W/O. HAMZAKOYA, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, KALLAMPARA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. MAIMOONA, W/O.SAIDALAVI, THENGILAKATH, MOONNIYOOR AMSOM, KALIYATTUMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS / STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, TIRURANGADI P.O.-676 306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SAFIYA, D/O. KOMUKUTTY, PAYANINGAL HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4941 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 20th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.646/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First petitioner is the husband and second respondent, the wife. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken and the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably with the second respondent and hence, it is Crmc 4941/10 2 not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Annexure-A4 agreement is produced to show that the matter has been settled. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that during the pendency of the case entire disputes have been settled and Annexure-A4 agreement is executed and in view of the settlement, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 5. Affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675), when matrimonial Crmc 4941/10 3 disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.646/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.