IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 305 of 2010() ------------------------ CMP.375/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. P.PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN ACHARI, MURUKA BHAVAN, MANKOOTTAM, R.C.STREET, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. BABY AMMA, MURUKA BHAVAN, MANKOOTTAM, R.C.STREET, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. NADESAN ACHARI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN ACHARI, AGED 72 YEARS RESIDING AT PONNU BHAVAN, THIRUPURAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.305 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are respondents 2 and 3 in C.M.P. No.375/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Neyyattinkara filed by the first respondent under Section 97 of Code of Criminal Procedure for production of the minor child Mehal contending that the child is under the illegal custody and wrongful confinement of the petitioners. Annexure-A2 notice was issued directing the first petitioner to appear before the Magistrate on 23.1.2010. Without appearing before the Magistrate, this petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint and Annexure-A2 notice. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that when W.P.(C)No.29237/2006 was pending before this CRMV 305/10 2 Court, the dispute between the first respondent and petitioners were settled and based on the compromise, Annexure-A3 judgment was passed directing Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara to close C.M.P.No.6792/2006 and Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose O.P. Nos.535/2006 and 556/2007 as withdrawn. First petitioner, thereafter, filed R.P.No.654/2009, which was disposed by Annexure-A4 order providing that the controversy regarding truth of mutual recriminations made by the parties is not to be settled in the review petition and there is no necessity to review Annexure-A3 judgment and if, subsequently, there has been change of circumstances, parties can approach the Family Court either for execution of the terms agreed upon or to pass fresh orders, in the light of the changed circumstances. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that in view of Anenxure-A4 order, petitioners are to approach the Family Court and cannot approach the CRMV 305/10 3 learned Magistrate and therefore, the proceedings is to be quashed. 4. I cannot agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel. Annexure-A3 judgment was passed accepting the compromise between the parties. Copy of the compromise petition made available by the petitioners establishes that as per the agreed terms of settlement, the minor child shall be in the custody of the first respondent. Now, admittedly, custody is with the petitioners. Though petitioners sought to review Annexure-A3 judgment, it was dismissed under Annexure-A4 order. In Annexure-A4 order, liberty was granted to the parties to approach the Family Court. But, petitioners did not approach the Family Court for modification of the terms of the settlement. In such circumstances, I find no reason to quash the proceedings as sought for. Petition is dismissed. 24th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv