IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 846 of 2010() ------------------------ CRIME NO.385/2009 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. ABDULLAHIL MUBARAK, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER, RESIDING AT KALAIYATHANTAVIDE N.T.HOUSE, PANOOR AMSOM, MOKERI DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. MAIMOONA A.P., AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.AHAMMED KALIL RAHMAN, ATTUPUTH HOUSE, KUMARANALLUR, BALUSSERY. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. BUSHARA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.KARATTU MAMU, KODIYATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------------- CRL.M.C. No. 846 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The second petitioner de facto complainant filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery alleging that petitioners committed offence under Sections 406 and 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-1 FIR was thus recorded based on the said complaint. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and further proceedings contending that as evidenced by Annexure-2 agreement, entire matrimonial disputes were amicably settled and in view of settlement, it is not in the interest of Justice to continue the prosecution. 2 The second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint statement along with the petitioners stating that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, second respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and therefore the proceedings are to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second Crl.M.C. No.846/2010 2 respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. 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 interest of justice to stand on technicalities and to continue the prosecution. The joint statement filed by the second respondent corroborated by Annexure-2 agreement entered into by the first petitioner and the second respondent establishes that all matrimonial disputes were settled amicably. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR and Crime No.385/2009 of Mukkom Police Station is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (JUDGE) vps Crl.M.C. No.846/2010 3