IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3105 of 2009() ------------------------- LPC.61/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... (CRIME NO.40/2001 OF DHARMADOM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. KHADER, AGED 40 YEARS, BAITHUL RUKSAN HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT AL-MANHAR, P.O. NETTOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DHARMADOM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. K.P. SHAMEENA, D/O. K.M. MOHAMMED, NABEESA MANZIL, KAYAKKOOL, P.O. KADIRUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV.MR.SALEESH K.S. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.3105 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 29th day of September,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused and husband of second respondent, the de facto complainant. Prosecution case against the four accused in C.C.199/2001 was that all of them in furtherance of their common intention committed offence under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioner was absconding the case as against him was split up and refiled as C.C.9/2009 and accused 2 to 4 were tried by the learned Magistrate. Under Annexure A2 judgment and 2 to 4 were found not guilty and were acquitted. The case as against the petitioner was subsequently removed to the register of long pending cases as L.P.61/2009. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against him contending that in view of the order of acquittal as against the co-accused and also because of the settlement with the second respondent de facto complainant it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Crl.M.C.3105/2009 2 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Annexure-A3 statement and submitted that the entire dispute with the petitioner husband has been amicably resolved. In such circumstance, the learned counsel submitted that second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure A2 judgment of the learned Magistrate establish that after recording the evidence, accused 2 to 4 were already found not guilty of the offence and they were acquitted. Annexure A3 statement of the second respondent establish that there was a complete amicable settlement of all the disputes with the petitioner. In such circumstance, it is absolutely clear that even if petitioner is to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak. In the light of the settlement, when there is no chance of a successful prosecution, the ordeal of trial would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Hence it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. The petition is allowed. L.P.61/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Crl.M.C.3105/2009 3 tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006