IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4676 of 2010() ---------------------- CRIME NO. 607/2010 OF CHERUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ................................... PETITIONER / ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ ANSAR AHAMMED, LAILA MANZIL, KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT POOVAKKUDI HOUSE, AMMU VILAS COMPOUND, CHERUTHURUTHI VILLAGE, THALAPPALLI TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREELATHA @ AISHA FATHIMA, PREETHA BHAVAN, KUMMI VILLAGE, KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT POOVAKKUDI HOUSE, AMMU VILAS COMPOUND, CHERUTHURUTHI VILLAGE, THALAPPALLI TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN – 681 532. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. SRI. C.R. SYAM MOHAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4676 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 21st December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant in Crime No.607/2010 of Cheruthuruthi Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 498 A, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 FIR. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes with the second respondent were settled and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit Crmc 4676/10 2 stating that because of the disputes, the case was registered and subsequently, they have settled all the disputes and forgotten all the past unpleasant things and now they are living together and to render justice, the case is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that statement of the second respondent recorded shows that she is now living with the petitioner and they have settled all the disputes between them. 5. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675), when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the Crmc 4676/10 3 interest of justice to continue the prosecution standing on technicalities. Affidavit filed by the second respondent wife establishes that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes with the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. Crime No.607/2010 of Cheruthuruthi Police Station registered under Annexure-A1 FIR is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.