IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 CRL.MC.NO. 1199 OF 2011() ---------------------------------------- CC.242/2002 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- HAREESHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, NIDHIN NIVAS, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PALLIKULAM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA (CRIME NO.623/2001, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.VINEETHA, D/O.PANNI BHASKARAN, MAILADATHADAM, AZHIKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.NISHIL.P.S. FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAIBY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1199 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.623 of 2001 of Valapattanam Police Station and accused in C.C. No.154 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by the second respondent. Police submitted final report against petitioner and the second accused. The latter faced trial in C.C. No.242 of 2002 and was acquitted by Annexure- III, judgment. Since petitioner was not available the case against him was included in the long pending register as L.P. No.150 of 2005 and on petitioner appearing before the learned Magistrate the case was refiled as C.C. No.154 of 2011. Petitioner wants to quash proceeding against him on the strength of a settlement reached with the second respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner and the second CRL.M.C. No.1199 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondent confirmed the settlement and authenticity of Annexure-V, agreement. Learned counsel for second respondent also confirmed authenticity of the affidavit of second respondent sworn before a Notary Public. Annexure-V is the agreement executed between petitioner and second respondent whereby they agreed to file a joint petition for divorce. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to pursue the prosecution against petitioner. I am inclined to allow this Crl. M.C. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-II, final report in Crime No.623 of 2001 Valapattanam Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C. No.154 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv