IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1673 of 2011() ------------------------ CRIME NO. 271/2010 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI ................. PETITIONERS – ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 : --------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANEESH, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 29 KODIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNAYIKANNAMKARA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI (DIST). 2. NAFEESATH BEEVI, W/O.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 51, KODIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNAYIKANNAMKARA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI (DIST). 3. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.MUHAMED, AGED 61, KODIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNAYIKANNAMKARA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K. MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS – STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 2. SHAFEENA,W/O.SANEESH, AGED 22, KODIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNAYIKANNAMKARA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI (DIST) – 678 120. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 1673 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE - A : CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 4 OF 2011 OF THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THODUPUZHA. ANNEXURE - B : AFFIDAVIT DTD 04-04-2011 SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1673 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.271 of 2010 of Thodupuzha Police Station and C.C.No.4 of 2011 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha for offence punishable under Sec.498A of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on the complaint of second respondent. Parties have settled the dispute and based on the settlement petitioners request to quash proceeding against them. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners and second respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for second respondent has also confirmed authenticity and genuineness of the affidavit of the second respondent. It is submitted by learned counsel on both sides that pursuant to the settlement first petitioner and second respondent are living together. In view of the settlement it is not necessary to continue the proceeding. Crl.M.C.No.1673 of 2011 -: 2 :- Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.271 of 2010 of Thodupuzha Police Station and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.4 of 2011 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-