IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 312 of 2011() ------------------------ CC 447/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO.124/2002 OF AREACODE POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, PULLUPARAMBU HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA AMSOM, MUNDAMPARAMBA. 2. MUNEER, S/O.VEERANKUTTY, THARAVAKODAN HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA AMSOM, MUNDAMPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.V.C.SARATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. CHEMBAKATH JAMEELA, W/O.NOORUDHEEN, PEEDIKAKKAN HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA AMSOM, MUNDAMPARAMBA-673641. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.BINDU GEORGE FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.312 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.447 of 2008 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri and Crime No.124 of 2002 of Areacode Police Station. They along with four others were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 354 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 31.03.2002 at about 7 p.m. they formed unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of respondent No.1/defacto complainant carrying sticks and stones, tore her dress, outraged her modesty and damaged household articles. Petitioners seek to quash proceedings against them on the strength of a settlement reached with respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has confirmed the settlement. Annexure-C is the affidavit sworn by respondent No.1. Learned Public Prosecutor also after getting instruction submitted that the matter is settled between parties. 2. It is seen that by Annexure-B, judgment accused Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted in C.C.No.10 of 2005 for want of evidence (obviously on the strength of settlement with respondent No.1). Accused Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted on the strength of a compromise and sanction petition (copy of which are Exts.P5 and Crl.MC No.312/2011 2 P6 in C.C.No.10 of 2005). It is seen from Annexure-C, affidavit of respondent No.1 that she has settled the matter with petitioners. In the light of that, continuing the prosecution does not appear to be of any use. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. In the result, this petition is allowed. Final report in Crime No.124 of 2002, cognizance taken thereon and proceedings in C.C.No.447 of 2008 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks