IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 652 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.121/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 ------------------------------------------ 1. SHAJI V.G., S/O.GOPIDHAS, VERUKANOLIL HOUSE, ALAPRA P.O., KANJIRAPALLY. 2. RAJAMMA, W/O.GOPIDAS, VERUKANOLIL HOUSE, ALAPRA P.O., KANJIRAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJI V.K., W/O.SHAJI V.G., VALLIYIL PADINJARETHIL HOUSE, KADAPRA P.O., KOIZHIPURAM, THIRUVALLA, PIN 689630. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.652 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.283 of 2008 of Koypiram Police Station and C.C.No.121 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1, wife of petitioner No.1. Now parties have settled the dispute and accordingly it is requested that proceeding against them may be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.1 and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has confirmed settlement and authenticity of signature of respondent No.1 in Crl.M.A.No.1309 of 2011, petition for compounding the offences and Annexure-III, affidavit. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction has also confirmed the settlement. Crl.MC No.652/2011 2 3. It is revealed from the compounding petition and Annexure-III, affidavit that parties have settled the dispute and that pursuant to that settlement, respondent No.1 is residing with petitioner No.1. In the circumstances continuance of the proceeding is not necessary. Hence I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-II, final report in Crime No.283 of 2008 of Koyipram Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.121 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks