IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1052 of 2011() ------------------------- CMP.5177/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... (CRIME NO.670/2010 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- FAIZAL, S/O.KARIMBIL VALAPPIL ABBAS, RESIDING AT AYSHA MANZIL, KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEKAL POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. ASYATH SAFIYATH.B.A., D/O.ABOOBACKER.T.K., NAMBADI PALLAM ADIYATH MEETHAL, MANGAD, BARA.P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT. 671 316. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1052 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.670 of 2010 of Bekal Police Station for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg alleging that petitioner and accused 2 to 5 subjected her to cruelty demanding more ornaments. That complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation. Police registered a case. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding on the strength of a settlement reached with respondent No.2, the defacto complainant. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 submitted that the dispute is settled between petitioner and respondent No.2 and that respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing the proceeding against petitioner and accused 2 to 5 (who have not joined in this Crl.M.C.). Annexure-2 is the agreement executed between petitioner and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 undertook that she will settle the criminal case (Crime No.670 of 2010) filed before the Bekal Police. Annexure-3 is the affidavit of respondent No.2. There, it is stated that the dispute between herself and petitioner is settled. Learned Crl.MC No.1052/2011 2 counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing proceeding against petitioner and accused 2 to 5 in view of Annexures-2 and 3, agreement and affidavit. 3. Since the dispute is personal to and between petitioner and respondent No.2 and that the dispute is settled I am inclined to allow the request as continuance of the proceeding would only be a wasteful exercise. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. FIR in Crime No.670 of 2010 of Bekal Police Station and all proceeding pursuant to it against petitioner and accused 2 to 5 are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks