IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1815 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------- CC.NO.609/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. RAJANEESH KUMAR, S/O.SHANMUGHAN PILLAI, GIREESH BHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM. 2. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, W/O.SHANMUGHAN PILLAI, GIREESH BHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM. 3. GIREESH KUMAR, S/O.SHANMUGHAN PILLAI, GIREESH BHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM. 4. GIRIJAMBIKA, D/O.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, RAVATHY, VELAMANOOR. BY ADVS. MR.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH, SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.4 OF 2008 OF PARAVUR POLICE STATION) 2. DHANYA, SREEDHANYA NILAYAM, THAZHAMVADAKKU, CHATHANNOOR. R2 BY ADV. MR.NISHIL.P.S. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1815 of 2009-B ================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.609/2008 on the file of Munsiff's Magistrate Court, Paravoor. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on the final report submitted by the police after investigation, based on the complaint filed by second respondent for the offences under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that the matrimonial dispute between first petitioner and second respondent were amicably settled and they have decided to file a joint petition for divorce before the Family Court and second respondent also agreed not to prosecute the case as she has received her entire gold ornaments, cash and other articles from the first petitioner. Annexure 4 affidavit was filed by the second respondent, defacto complainant, stating that all Crl.M.C.No.1815/2009-B -2- her disputes with the petitioners were amicably settled and she has no intention to proceed with the case and she has voluntarily filed the petition and she has no objection to quash the proceedings. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the second respondent with the affidavit of the second respondent establish that the matrimonial disputes between first petitioner, husband and second respondent, wife, were amicably settled and they have decided to separate and not to proceed with the pending cases, it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and jeopardize the settlement. When the dispute of the defacto complainant is settled amicably and she has no intention to proceed with the case, even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no chance of a successful Crl.M.C.No.1815/2009-B -3- prosecution and it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court, which could otherwise be utilised for better purposes. In such circumstances as held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 SC) it is unnecessary to continue the prosecution, in the interest of justice. 4. Crl.M.C.No. 1815/2009 is allowed. C.C.No. 609/2008 on the file of Munsiff's Magistrate, Paravoor, is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr