IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 5066 OF 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.391 OF 2010, BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI (LATE), IDIYADUKA HOUSE, POST PERLA, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. SHERIFA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.K.K.ISMAIL, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, NILLIKUNNU, PANATHUR POST, NOW RESIDING AT IDIYADUKA HOUSE, POST PERLA, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I.OF POLICE, BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSPHALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No. 5066 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of January, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. At a time when their relationship was not cordial, petitioner No.2 preferred a complaint based on which Badiadka police registered Crime No.391 of 2010 against petitioner No.1 for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter petitioners settled the dispute between them and started living together. Now petitioner No.2 does not want to proceed with the complaint and hence petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding in Crime No.391 of 2010 of Badiadka police. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.2 has also joined the petition and Annexure A2 would show that dispute has been settled between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Annexure A2 is the agreement entered into between the petitioners settling their dispute. In Annexure A3, affidavit petitioner No.2 stated that the dispute has been settled amicably CRL.M.C. No. 5066 of 2010 -: 2 :- between the parties, they are now living together and that she does not intend to continue the prosecution. In that view of the matter continuance of the proceedings will not yield the expected result and it will only be a waste of energy and time. For the continued harmonious relationship between petitioners also proceedings are to be quashed. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Proceedings in Crime No.391 of 2010 of the Badiadka police are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv