IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2007 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 439 of 2005 ------------------------------------- CC.540/2004 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: 1. UBAID, S/O.USMAN, KIDARANTAVIDA VEEDU, PULIYANABREH, PERINGATHOOR, THALASSERY. 2. LATHEEF, S/O.USMAN, KIDARANTAVIA VEEDU, PULIYANABRETH, PEINGATHOOR, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.P.RESHMA KABIR RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLIANANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.H.O. CHOKLY POLICE STATION. ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED BUSHARA, D/O MOIDU, ORKKATTERI KARUVANKANDI VEEDU, VADAKARA TALUK, THALASSERY. Impleaded as per order dt. 12.10.2006 in CrMA 5287/06 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 439 of 2005 --------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No. 540/04 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thalassery. They were Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.242/04 and consequent on their absconding, the case against the other co- accused, namely Accused Nos.3 and 4, was tried and disposed of, vide Annexure-A2 judgment. The case against the absconding petitioners were re-filed as C.C.No.540/04. The offences with which they stand charged are offences punishable under Sections 403 and 498A IPC read with Section 109 thereof. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the matter is already settled between the parties and therefore, the proceedings as against them in C.C.No.540/04 is liable to be quashed. The additional third respondent, who is the defacto complainant, is served, but she has not entered appearance. If at all there is any settlement CRMC 439/05 2 between the parties, it is up to the parties to report before Court. On the other hand, the additional third respondent abstains from appearing before this Court. In the circumstances, the request for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioners cannot be allowed. This Crl.M.C. is, hence, devoid of merit. In the result, I dismiss this Crl.M.C. 19th December, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv