IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4080 of 2010() ------------------------ CRIME NO. 63/2010 OF KATINAMKULAM POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. NASEEM.D., S/O.DAVOOD, AGED 23 YEARS, `A.S.VILLA', CHILAKKOOR, VARKALA P.O. 2. DAVOOD, AGED 48 YEARS, `A.S.VILLA', CHILAKKOOR, VARKALA P.O. 3. SHAHIRA, AGED 43 YEARS, `A.S.VILLA', CHILAKKOOR, VARKALA P.O. 4. NIZAM, AGED 20 YEARS, `A.S.VILLA', CHILAKKOOR, VARKALA P.O. BY ADV. SMT. DAISY A. PHILIPOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. YASINA BASHEER, D/O.RASHEEDA BASHEER `SWAPNA', PERUMATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU R2 BY ADVS. SRI. P.B. SURESH KUMAR SRI. LEO GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 4083 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.4080 and 4083 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of June, 2011 ORDER Accused in Crime Nos.63 of 2010 and 104 of 2010, both of Katinamkulam Police Station are the petitioners before me. They request to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with the second respondent, the de facto complainant. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Crl.M.C.No.4080 of 2010 concerns Crime No.63 of 2010 for offence punishable under Sec.498A r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”). That case was registered on the complaint of the second respondent, wife of first petitioner. 3. Crl.M.C.No.4083 of 2010 concerns Crime No.104 of 2010 for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 447, 427 and 506(ii) r/w Sec.149 of the IPC. That case was registered on the complaint of the second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.4083 of 2010, father-in-law of the first petitioner. Petitioners say that entire dispute is settled in the Adalath as revealed by Annexure- A2 and A3, orders respectively which say that at the stage of Crl.M.C.Nos.4080 and 4083 of 2010 -: 2 :- petitioners preferring application for bail the matter was referred to the Adalath and before the Adalath the matter was settled. It is also stated in the orders that parties told the Adalath that they will complete the settlement by 27.07.2010. 4. Parties have filed Crl.M.A.No.3357 of 2011, a joint petition to compound the offences in both cases. That petition is signed by petitioners and second respondent in both these proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioners and second respondent in both the cases have confirmed the settlement and genuineness and authenticity of the joint petition signed by the parties and their respective counsel. 5. The dispute is personal to and between petitioners and second respondent in these cases. That dispute having been settled amicably outside Court it is not necessary to continue the proceeding. Hence I am inclined to allow these petitions. Resultantly these criminal miscellaneous cases are disposed of in the following lines: (i) Crl.M.C.No.4080 of 2010 is allowed. FIR in Crime No.63 of 2010 of Katinamkulam Police Station and all proceeding pursuant to it taken against petitioners are quashed. (ii) Crl.M.C.No.4083 of 2011 is allowed. FIR in Crime No.104 of 2010 of Katinamkulam Crl.M.C.Nos.4080 and 4083 of 2010 -: 3 :- Police Station and all proceeding pursuant to it taken against petitioners are quashed. (iii) The passport if any of first petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.4080 of 2010 (Crime No.63 of 2010 of Katinamkulam Police Station) surrendered before the trial court shall be returned to the first petitioner on application, if it is not required to be detained for any other purpose. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-