IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1544 of 2011() ---------------------- CC.1557/2009 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................. PETITIONERS / A1 & A2 : ------------------------------------- 1. SIVARAMAN, AGED 51, S/O.AYYAMMA, MOOPPANPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNDANNOOR, MARADU VILLAGE. 2. AMMINI, AGED 55, S/O.AYYAMMA, MOOPPANPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNDANNOOR, MARADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------------- 1. SHOBHANA, AGED 40, W/O.SIVARAMAN, MOOPPANPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNDANNOOR, MARADU VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PANANGADU POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.380/2007) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1544 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.380 of 2007 of Panangad Police Station and C.C.No.1557 of 2009 of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offence punishable under Sec.498A r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. First respondent has sworn an affidavit attested by Adv.G.Siji who is appearing for the first respondent in this proceeding. Learned counsel for petitioners and first respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for first respondent has confirmed authenticity and genuineness of affidavit of the first respondent. That affidavit states that the dispute is settled between petitioners and the first respondent and that the latter has no grievance against petitioners. Hence she does not intend to proceed with the criminal proceeding. 3. Since the dispute is personal to and between petitioners and first respondent and that dispute is amicably settled it is not necessary to continue the proceeding. Hence I Crl.M.C.No.1544 of 2011 -: 2 :- am inclined to allow this petition. This criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.380 of 2007of Panangad Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.1557 of 2009 of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge