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. 1138 of 2011() ---------------------------------- CC.842/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SHIJU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 34 YEARS, MANJALY HOUSE, ANAPPARA P.O., MANJAPRA VIA, ANGAMALY-683 581. 2. GEORGE, MANJALY HOUSE, ANAPPARA P.O., MANJAPRA VIA, ANGAMALY-683 581. 3. MARY, W/O.GEORGE, MANJALY HOUSE, ANAPPARA P.O., MANJAPRA, VIA.ANGAMALY-683 581. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): STATE-DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-31. 2. ELPHY.R.CHUNGATH, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.RAPHAEL J.CHUNGATH, 3016, N.NORMANDY A V, CHICAGO, II, USA-60634, NOW RESIDING AT CHUNGATH HOUSE, ALOOR P.O., ANATHADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-691 523. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA 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.1138 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.1268 of 2009 of Kalady Police Station and C.C.No.842 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). That case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, wife of the petitioner No.1. It is submitted that parties have settled the dispute and accordingly they have decided to separate. Annexure-AIII is the copy of joint petition for divorce filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 before the Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act. Annexure-AIV is the affidavit of respondent No.2 (attested by counsel for respondent No.2). Hence it is requested that proceeding against petitioners may be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel on either side confirmed the settlement, authenticity of Annexure-III, joint petition for divorce filed before Family Court, Ernakulam and Annexure-AIV, affidavit of respondent No.2 (attested by learned counsel for respondent No.2). Crl.MC No.1138/2011 2 3. It is seen from Annexure-AIV, affidavit that the dispute is settled between petitioners and respondent No.2. In the circumstances continuance of the proceeding is not required. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-AII, final report in Crime No.1268 of 2009 of Kalady Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.842 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks