IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 179 of 2011() ------------------------ CC NO.249/2010 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO.446/2010 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED -------------------------- FAZIL, S/O.KIZHAKKATH PARAMBIL MOIDEENKUTTY, RANDATHANI P.O. TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHAHIDA D/O. ERAMTHODI SULAIMAN, ANAKKAYAM P.O. PIN - 676509. ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.179 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011. ORDER Respondent No.2, wife of petitioner preferred a private complaint before the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manjeri alleging that petitioner and his mother committed breach of trust with respect to her ornaments and subjected her to cruelty demanding more dowry. Learned Magistrate forwarded that complaint to the Manjeri Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). The Police registered Crime No.446 of 2010 (Annexure-1 is the FIR) against petitioner and accused No.2 and after investigation submitted final report against petitioner, deleting accused No.2 from the array of accused since investigation revealed that she had not committed any offence. On the strength of Annexure- 2, final report learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri took cognizance against petitioner for offences above stated and filed C.C.No.249 of 2010. Since then, petitioner and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute and accordingly executed Annexure-3, agreement. Respondent No.2 has filed Annexure-4, affidavit stating that the matter is settled between the parties. It is therefore requested that the proceedings against petitioner may be quashed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.1. Crl.M.C.No.179/2011 2 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the matter is settled between the parties as revealed from Annexures-3 and 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also after getting instructions from the Sub Inspector concerned (who is present in person in court) has submitted that parties have settled the matter outside court. 4. The offence is personal to and between petitioner and respondent No.2. Largely success of prosecution depended on the evidence that respondent No.2 is to give. As per Annexure-3, agreement, petitioner and respondent No.2 have decided to separate and accordingly, divorce is effected. Now a harmonious relationship is reached between parties though they have decided to separate. In the circumstances stated I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-2, final report in Crime No.446 of 2010 of Manjeri Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and all proceedings in C.C.No.249 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri are quashed as against petitioner. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks