IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 331 of 2011() -------------------- CC 391/2005 AND LP.41/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI CRIME NO.139/2005 OF RANNI POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 -------------------------------- 1. O.V.THOMAS @ JOYICHAN, S/O.O.V.VARKEY, UZHATHIL HOUSE, NIRANAM KIZHAKUMBHAGOM, NIRANAM. 2. O.V.YOHANNAN @ PONNUMON, S/O.O.V.VARKEY, DO. 3. O.V.DHANIEL @ PRAKASH, S/O.O.V.VARKEY, DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): STATE & CWS 1 AND 2 -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. CHERIAN, S/O.KURIAKOSE, THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, CHERUKULATHY MURI, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE. 3. KUNJUMOL, W/O.CHERIAN, DO. ADV. SMT.RESHMI JACOB FOR R2&R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.331 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.139 of 2005 of Ranny Police Station and C.C.No.391 of 2005 and L.P.No.41 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranny involving offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners seek to quash proceedings against them on the strength of a settlement reached with respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is seen from Annexures-B and C, affidavits sworn by respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the dispute is settled with petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has confirmed fact of settlement. Learned Public Prosecutor also after getting instruction submits that parties have settled dispute among them. 3. It is not disputed before me that parties are related. Case is that on 11.06.2005 on account of respondent No.2 insulting petitioners, the latter attacked respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is revealed from the submission of learned counsel that the incident occurred following the burial of mother of petitioners and there was some altercation following that. 4. I stated the motive for the alleged incident. I also stated that Crl.M.C.No.331/2011 2 parties are closely related. There is no reason to think that the incident was the result of premeditation. Having regard to these circumstances and in the light of Annexures-B and C affidavits sworn by respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating that they have settled the dispute with petitioners I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed. The final report in Crime No.139 of 2005 of Ranny Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and all proceedings in C.C.No.391 of 2005 and L.P.No.41 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranny against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks