IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1021 of 2011() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.215/2011 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SARATH S.DEVAN, S/O G.SUDEVAN, SARANYA, KADAKKAL P.O., NEAR KADAKKAL TOWN HALL, KOLLAM. 2. RAJKUMAR.S, S/O SREEKANDAN NAIR, EAST KADAVILAKATH HOUSE, MRA 154, MANACAUD, PIN-695 009, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SARIKA, D/O SHOBANA, PREMSAY HOUSE, KANNIMEL NAGAR 119, KANNIMEL CHERIYIL, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMD ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1021 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.215 of 2011 of Kollam East Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 506(i), 204(b) and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on 18.02.2011 between 2.00 and 8.30 p.m. and even before that day, first petitioner outraged modesty of first respondent, threatened and criminally intimated her. It is stated that the matter is settled with the first respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioners and first respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for first respondent confirmed authenticity of affidavit sworn by the first respondent before a Notary Public. In that affidavit it is stated that the matter is settled and first respondent does not intend to proceed against petitioners further. In the light of the settlement of the dispute outside court, and considering the fact that the dispute is personal to and between the parties and that in view of the settlement there is no possibility of a successful culmination of the prosecution I am inclined to allow this petition. CRL.M.C. No. -: 2 :- Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. FIR in Crime No.215 of 2011 of Kollam East Police Station and all further proceeding against petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv