IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1137 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CC.330/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- ABDUL KHADER.P., S/O.LATE MOOSA, PERINGODAN HOUSE, PALACHIRAMADU POST, KOTTAKKAL VIA., EDARIKKODE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, KALPAKANCHERRY-676 551, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. P.RABIYA, D/O.YAHU, THOTTUMKAYA VEEDU, PERUMANNA POST-676 501, VALAKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAIBY PAUL R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1137 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.147 of 2009 of Kalpakanchery Police Station and C.C.No.330 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case was registered on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2, wife of petitioner. It is submitted that parties have settled the dispute and accordingly they have decided to separate. Hence it is requested that proceeding against him may be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel on either side confirmed the settlement, authenticity of Annexure-A4, agreement executed between petitioner and respondent No.2 (before a Notary Public) and Annexure-A5, affidavit of respondent No.2 (attested by learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. It is seen from Annexure-A5, affidavit that the dispute is settled between petitioner and respondent No.2. In the circumstances continuance of the proceeding is not required. Crl.MC No.1137/2011 2 Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A3, final report in Crime No.147 of 2009 of Kalpakanchery Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.330 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks