IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2223 of 2011() ------------------------------- CC.745/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ---------------------------------------- 1. JIJU MON, S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS, MATTATHU PURAYIDATHIL VEEDU, THODIYOOR VILLAGE. 2. IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.ABDUL KHADER KUNJU, MATTATHU PURAYIDATHIL VEEDU, THODIYOOR VILLAGE. 3. SUHARA BEEVI, W/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, MATTATHU PURAYIDATHIL VEEDU, THODIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. DR.SHAMEENA, AGED 24, D/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, PANDYALAYIL VEEDU, VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 578. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO.2223/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BEFOE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN FIR NO.300/2011 WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE B:ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs B.P. Ray, J. ==================================== Crl.M.C.2223/2011 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011. ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.300/11 of Chavara Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. now pending as C.C.745/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally. It is stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent as well as the petitioners that the matter has been settled between the parties. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Joshy v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) K.L.T. 1062) and in view of the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties, the complaint is to be quashed. If the second respondent makes a statement before the Magistrate within three weeks from today that she is divorced and matter has been settled out of court, the learned Magistrate shall treat the case as closed. If an application is made by the defacto Crl.M.C.2223/2011 -:2:- complainant to record her statement in camera, the same shall be allowed. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. B.P. Ray, Judge. sl.