IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 324 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- CC.797/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K.N.SATHEESH, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, KANJIRAM PARAMBATH HOUSE, KUTHIATHODU, PUTHENVELIKARA, NORTH PARAVOOR TALUK. 2. K.N.NARAYANA PANICKER, KANJIRAM PARAMBATH HOUSE, KUTHIATHODU, PUTHENVELIKARA, NORTH PARAVOOR TALUK. 3. AMBIKA, W/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, KANJIRAM PARAMBATH HOUSE, KUTHIATHODU, PUTHENVELIKARA, NORTH PARAVOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM). 2. SAJINI.C.M, D/O.MOHANAN NAIR, CHETTIKOTTU HOUSE, NEERIKODE P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR-683 511. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI SABU SREEDHARAN SRI.VINUCHAND FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.324 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioners who are accused in crime No.281 of 2009 of Puthenvelikkara Police Station and C.C. No.797 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur to quash proceedings against them on the strength of a compromise allegedly reached with respondent No.2. Annexure-1 is the photocopy of joint petition filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 before Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act where, reference is made to the settlement reached between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the Sub Inspector has recorded statement of respondent No.2 but then, she did not say anything about the settlement and instead she stated that she is afraid of her husband and his relatives. In view of that statement I directed the second respondent to be present in court. Accordingly she has appeared CRL.M.C. No.324 of 2011 -: 2 :- in person before me today. I asked the second respondent whether she has signed Annexure-1, joint petition to which she answered in the affirmative. She stated that she has settled the matter with petitioners and she does not want to pursue the criminal proceeding against them in view of the settlement. She confirmed the settlement. According to the second respondent what she told the Sub Inspector was the situation which prevailed as on date of initiation of the proceeding. She however is agreeable to the proceeding against petitioners being quashed. She has made an endorsement on the inner side of the docket sheet of this petition stating that she has voluntarily agreed for discontinuance of the proceeding. Counsel for second respondent has countersigned the endorsement made by the second respondent. In view of the above I am inclined to accept the version of petitioners that they have settled the matter with the second respondent. 3. Essentially the dispute is between petitioners and the second respondent. That has been settled out of court. In that situation it is not necessary to continue proceeding and I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. CRL.M.C. No.324 of 2011 -: 3 :- Annexure-2, final report in Crime No.281 of 2009 of Puthenvelikkara police station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C. No.797 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv