IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 754 of 2010 -------------------------------- [CC.NO.514/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA, CRIME NO.234/08 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- FATHIMA BEEVI, D/O. BEEYATHA KANNU, NADIYAVILATHOPPIL VEEDU, NEAR PULLUVILA GOVT. HOSPITL, KARUMKULAM DESOM & VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. MR.G.SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUBAIDA BEEVI, D/O. FATHIMA, THIPPIL PURAYIDOM, NEDIYAVILA, PULLUVILA, KARUMKULAM VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B. PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. MR.S.K.VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.754 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused and the mother-in-law of second respondent de facto complaint in C.C.514/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate- III, Neyyattinkara taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final report. As is clear from Annexure-A2, prosecution case is that petitioner and her husband the first accused were treating second respondent daughter-in-law with cruelty on her failure to give expected dowry and thereby committed the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Crmc 754/10 2 Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against her contending that her husband, first accused is no more and entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and second respondent is now living with her husband, the son of the petitioner and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent filed an affidavit stating that her father-in-law the first accused is no more and she is now residing with her husband and due to intervention made by the elders and well wishers entire matrimonial disputes were settled and for a peaceful married life, it is necessary not to proceed with the Crmc 754/10 3 case and therefore, the case is to be compounded. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that second respondent is a woman police constable and now she is residing with the son of the petitioner and entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. Affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that entire matrimonial disputes were settled and she is now residing with her husband and she has no grievance against the petitioner. As held by the Apex in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675) when Crmc 754/10 4 matrimonial disputes were settled between the husband and the wife, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, especially when consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.514/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara as against second accused is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.