IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 160 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.268 OF 2007, THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SAJI S.,S/O.V.SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 27 YEARS, TC.68/1327,CHITHIRA, KOLAMTHARA, PACHALOOR P.O., THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. SREEKUMARI,S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS,-DO- 3. SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.SANKARAN PILLA AGED 62 YEARS,-DO-DO- 4. SARITHA, D/O.SREEKUMARI AGED 32 YEARS, -DO-DO- 5. KAVITHA, D/O.SREEKUMAR,AGED 34 YEARS, -DO-DO- 6. KUMAR, S/O.RAVEENDRAN TAHMPI AGED 34 YEARS, -DO-DO- BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO-268/2007 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) 2. MRIDULA G.M.,@ TULASI T.C.32/53,MRIDULA BHAVAN, BALA NAGAR, TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No. 160 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 O R D E R First petitioner is son of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and brother of petitioner Nos.4 and 5. Petitioner No.6 is the husband of petitioner No.4. They are accused in crime No.268 of 2007 of the Thiruvallam police and C.C. No.162 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Petitioners seek to quash the proceedings against them on the ground of settlement of dispute with respondent No.2, the de facto complainant and wife of petitioner No.1. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that in the final report there is reference to causing miscarriage of respondent No.2 though with the consent of respondent No.2. Learned Public Prosecutor confirmed the fact of settlement. In response it is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that as seen from Annexure-I, final report learned Magistrate has not taken cognisance for any offence other than CRL.M.C. No.163 of 2011 -: 2 :- under Sec.498A read with Sec.34 of the IPC. That statement is found to be correct in view of the endorsement in Annexure-I, final report though there is reference in the final report about miscarriage. 2. It is seen from Annexure-II, compromise petition that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute and accordingly petitioner No.1 agreed to pay respondent `.1,75,000/- to respondent No.2. Term of the settlement is that the Demand Draft for the said amount will be produced before the Family Court where civil disputes are pending. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed to separate and it is submitted that accordingly petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have filed a joint petition before the Family Court under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and are awaiting orders on the said petition. 3. As above stated it is seen that though deciding to separate, the dispute has been settled between the parties and as pointed out above learned Magistrate has not taken cognisance of any offence other than under Sec.498A read with Sec.34 of the IPC. In the circumstances to maintain the harmonious relationship and the understanding that the parties have reached so that both parties could have a happy, settled life once the CRL.M.C. No.163 of 2011 -: 3 :- Family Court decided to grant divorce on the joint petition, I am inclined to interfere. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-I, final report in Crime No.268 of 2007 of Thiruvallam police and further proceedings in C.C. No.162 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara concerning the petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv