IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4910 of 2010() ------------------------------------- LPC.76/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MALAPPURAM. CRIME NO.32/2002 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHUKKUDY HOUSE, KALLUDUMBIL, OMANOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.K.RAKESH. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. RAJEENA, D/O.MUHAMMEDKOYA, PALLIYALI, CHELEMBRA, CHELOORPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.T.SHEEBA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.4910 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of December,2010 ORDER Petitioner was the first accused in C.C.512/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. As petitioner was absconding, the case against him was split up and refiled. It is now pending as L.P.76/2008. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that case against the remaining accused 2 to 5 were already acquitted and entire disputes with the second respondent de facto complainant, were already settled and in such circumstances it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit to the effect Crl.M.C.4910/2010 2 that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and she has no further grievance against him and therefore she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second 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 continue the prosecution. 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. L.P. 76/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Crl.M.C.4910/2010 3 Malappuram is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006