High Court Kerala High Court

Viswanathan vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Viswanathan vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 262 of 2010()


1. VISWANATHAN, S/O.RAMACHANDRA IYER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. LALITHA, D/O.RAMACHANDRA IYER,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERRY

3. N.T.N. VENKITALAKSHMI,D/O.N.T.NARAYANAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

                For Respondent  :SMT.P.G.BABITHA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :09/04/2010

 O R D E R
               M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
              --------------------------
                Crl.M.C.No.262 of 2010
              --------------------------

                         ORDER

Petitioners are the accused and third respondent,

the defacto complainant in C.C.No.429/2009 on the file

of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Alathur,

taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-3

final report. Petitioner is the husband and third

respondent his wife. Second petitioner is the sister of

the first petitioner. This petition is filed under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure to quash the

cognizance taken and the proceedings pending before the

Magistrate contending that entire matrimonial disputes

between the parties were settled amicably and

consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest

of justice to continue the prosecution.

2. Third respondent appeared through a counsel and

filed a joint petition, along with the petitioners,

stating that consequent to the settlement of entire

matrimonial disputes, it is not in the interest of

justice to continue the prosecution and to give a

CRMC 262/10 2

quietus to the family disputes, it is necessary to

quash the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

third respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were

heard.

4. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State

of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675), when the matrimonial

disputes are settled between the parties, it is not in

the interest of justice to continue the prosecution,

standing on technicalities. Joint statement filed by

the third respondent wife, along with the petitioners,

the husband and the sister-in-law, establishes that

there was settlement of all the matrimonial disputes.

In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of

justice to continue the prosecution.

Petition is allowed. C.C.No.429/2009 on the file

of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Alathur is

quashed.

9th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv