IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1066 of 2011() ------------------------- LP.43/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :- --------------------------------------- MANOJ, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KOLLAKATTU HOUSE, CHOLATHADAM P.O, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BINDU MOL,W/O.MANOJ, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KARIMBUMKAYAM, CHIRAKADAVU P.O, KOTTAYAM- 686 520. ADV. SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1066 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 31st day of March 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.502 of 2003 of Erattupetta Police Station and sole accused in L.P.No.43 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta for offence punishable under Sec.498A r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). 2. That case was registered on the complaint of 2nd respondent against petitioner and accused 2 to 4. Accused 2 to 4 faced trial in C.C.No.205 of 2004. Petitioner requests to quash proceeding against him on the strength of a settlement reached with the 2nd respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner and 2nd respondent Crl.M.C. No.1066 of 2011 -: 2 :- confirmed the settlement between parties. It is also submitted that pursuant to the settlement petitioner and 2nd respondent are living together. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent has confirmed authenticity of Annexure-2 agreement executed between petitioner and 2nd respondent. In the circumstance, I am inclined to think that continuance of proceeding is not necessary. Resultantly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Final report in Crime No.502 of 2003 of Erattupetta Police Station and proceeding against petitioner/accused in L.P.No.43 of 2007 are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt