IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1761 of 2009()
1. ABBAS, S/O.PUTHUVEETTIL VAPPUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SOUDA @ SOUDABI,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :10/06/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 1761 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 10th day of June,2009
ORDER
Petitioner is the first accused in Crime 327/2005
of Anthikkad Police Station now pending as C.C.725/2009
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.II,
Thrissur. The offence alleged is under section 120B,
406 and 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal
Code. Second accused the sister of the petitioner was
tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate II,
Thrissur in C.C.613/2005 after splitting the case as
against the petitioner and was acquitted under Annexure
B judgment dated 24.3.2009. This petition is filed
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash the split up case, as against the petitioner
namely C.C.725/2009 contending that the dispute with
the second respondent de facto complainant is settled
and in such circumstance no purpose will be served by
undergoing the ordeal of a trial. Second respondent is
represented by a counsel and she has filed an affidavit
dated 19.5.2009 stating that all the disputes with the
petitioner and her husband were settled and he had
Crl.M.C.1761/2009 2
divorced her after paying Rs.3,50,000/- and she is fully
satisfied with the settlement and she does not wish to
continue with the prosecution in C.C.725/2009 and therefore
she has no objection for quashing the proceedings.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted
that the matter has been settled between petitioner and
second respondent.
4. The offence alleged against the petitioner is with
regard to the matrimonial dispute. The dispute between the
petitioner and his wife, the second respondent were
subsequently resolved as is clear from the affidavit filed
by the second respondent and the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and the second
respondent. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be
served by directing the court to try the petitioner as
chance of a successful prosecution is very bleak. In such
circumstance, in the interest of justice, C.C.725/2009 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrte II, Thrissur as
against the petitioner is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
Crl.M.C.1761/2009 3
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).NO. /06
---------------------
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006