IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1543 of 2011() ------------------------------- CC.76/2009 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. SAMEER K.T., 34 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KOTTATHALAYAN (H) NEAR B.E.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MADAYI P.O., KANNUR DIST. 2. P.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 60 YEARS,KOTTATHALAYAN (H) NEAR B.E.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MADAYI P.O., KANNUR DIST. 3. BEEFATHU K.T., AGED 52 YEARS,W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KOTTATHALAYAN (H)NEAR B.E.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MADAYI P.O., KANNUR DIST. 4. SAMEEHA K.T., D/O.SHAHUL HAMEED,KOTTATHALAYAN (H) NEAR B.E.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MADAYI P.O., KANNUR DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. NASEEHA P.V., AGED 27 YEARS,D/O.N.K.ABDUL KAREEM, NEW HOUSE, MATTOOL CENTRAL, KANNUR DIST - 670302. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SMT.BINDU GEORGE R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1543 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of May, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.76 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Payyannur arising from a private complaint filed by the first respondent for offence punishable under Sec.498A r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that petitioners subjected the first respondent to cruelty. Evidence of first respondent and witnesses was taken and the case was posted for hearing. At that stage, there was an application by the petitioners under Sec.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was dismissed. It is submitted that following that, parties have settled the dispute. Based on that settlement, petitioners request this Court to quash proceeding against them. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioners and first respondent confirmed the settlement between petitioners and first respondent. Learned counsel for first respondent also confirmed authenticity and genuineness of the affidavit sworn by the first respondent where it is stated that since the dispute is settled and first respondent has received Crl.M.C.No.1543 of 2011 -: 2 :- compensation, she is not interested in proceeding with the case. She has no objection in quashing the proceeding and exonerating petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that as per settlement, first respondent has been divorced by the first petitioner. Since the dispute is personal to and between the parties and since that dispute is settled I am inclined to think that it is not necessary to proceed with the case against petitioners. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.76 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Payyannur are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-