IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 113 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.658/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA CRIME NO. 184 OF 2009 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. ABBAS.K, AGED 38, S/O.IBRAHIM, KALLULLATHIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBA POST, VILLIAPPALLY, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. IBRAHIM, AGED 65 YEARS, KALLULLATHIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBA POST, VILLIAPPALLY, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.184/2009) THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SOUDHA, AGED 32, D/O.KUNJABDULLA, POTHUKUTTIYIL, P.O.ORKATTERY, ERAMALA, VADAKARA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 113 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Crimimal Procedure seeking to have the final report quashed. 2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.184 of 2009 of Vadakara Police Station, which has been taken on file as C.C. No.658 of 2009 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the petitioners treated the defacto complainant cruelly. Infact the proceedings originated on a private complaint referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Before this court the parties have represented that the matter is settled and the defacto complainant has filed a sworn statement. Learned Public Prosecutor also conceded Crl.M.C.113/2010. 2 that the defacto complainant has represented that she has no further grievance in the matter. In the light of this fact, I feel that it is unnecessary to probe further into the matter since the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them. In the light of the law as per the decisions reported in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008(3) KLT 769), Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) K.L.T 417) and since it is also felt that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the matter, further proeedings in C.C. 658 of 2009 is quashed accepting the compromise between the parties. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.