IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 6 of 2011() ---------------------- CMP.4445/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE , NILAMBUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. FIROS BABU, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, PERUMAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, POST PUTHIYANGADI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SAFIA, W/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, PERUMAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, POST PUTHIYANGADI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ALIL, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, PERUMAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, POST PUTHIYANGADI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. RAHMATHUL BENEESHA, D/O.ABDUL SALAM, KORAMANGALATH HOUSE, NILAMBUR AMSOM, JANATHAPADI DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SHRI S.SHAJI FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.6 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. ORDER Respondent No.1, wife filed Annexure-I, complaint against petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). That complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police registered Annexure-II, first information report and later the first information report was transferred to the Tirur police station who registered Annexure-III, first information report. Case is now in the crime stage. In the meantime, parties have settled their dispute and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 have executed Annexure-IV, agreement as per which it was agreed that respondent No.1 will not pursue the crime case registered by the Tirur police (Annexure-III, first information report). Respondent No.1 has sworn Annexure-V, affidavit stating that the matter has been settled between herself and petitioners and that she has no subsisting grievance against petitioners. She does not intend to prosecute the matter further and she has no objection in quashing Annexure-III, first information report. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that as per Annexure-IV, agreement petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 are living separately and that all the conditions mentioned in Annexure-IV, agreement has been complied. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also says that money payable to respondent No.1 has already been paid. Crl.M.C.No.6/2011 2 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.1 and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 3. Now that the parties have settled the dispute and have decided to live separately in accordance with that agreement, it is not necessary to continue investigation of the case since that would not yield the expected result. Moreover to maintain the harmonious relationship between parties I consider that such a course is necessary. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. In the result, this petition is allowed and Annexure-I, complaint and Annexures-II and III, first information reports are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks