IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4953 of 2010() ------------------------- (CRIME NO. 918 OF 2010 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION ) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. ABDULMAJEED, S/O. ABDULLAH, AGED 24, CHAMAKKALAYILHOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM P.O., S.N.CENTRE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ABDULLAH, AGED 46, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM P.O., S.N.CENTRE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. 3. SUBAIDA,W/O.ABDULAH,AGED 41 YEARS, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM P.O., S.N.CENTRE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,E RNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD. 2. SAMITHA, D/O.MUHAMMADALI, AGED 21 YEARS, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, NEDUMPARAMBU DESOM, KOOLIMUTTAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. MR. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.BINDI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4953 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011. ORDER This petition is filed by accused in Crime No.918 of 2010 of Valappad Police Station for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2 onwards are parents and other relatives of petitioner No.1. In this petition, it is prayed that proceedings against petitioners may be quashed in the light of the settlement reached between them and respondent No.2. 2. Initially when this matter came up for hearing it was pointed out that there is mistake in the name of deponent in Annexure-C, affidavit which allegedly was of respondent No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has filed a fresh affidavit (Annexure-D) where her name is correctly stated. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.2 assert that the dispute has been settled between parties as disclosed by Annexure-D, affidavit. It is submitted that as per settlement petitioner No.1 is to divorce respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in Annexure-D, affidavit has stated that the dispute is settled and that she has no grievance against the accused (petitioners). She also stated that criminal proceeding was initiated on account Crl.MC No.4953/2010 2 of imotional impulse and now she does not want to proceed in the matter. 5. The offence alleged is purely personal to and between petitioners and respondent No.2. In view of cordial relationship and understanding between parties there is no possibility of a successful culmination of prosecution and hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-B, FIR and all further proceedings against petitioners in Crime No.918 of 2010 of Valappad Police Station are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks