IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1991 of 2011() ---------------------- CC.368/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR ............... PETITIONER / ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- P.MUSAFIR, S/O.C.H.ABDUL RAHMAN HAJI, AGED 34 YEARS, 'CHAPPAYIL HOUSE', ITTAMMAL POST, MADAI AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. HALEEMA M., D/O.MOHAMED KUNHI, 'MANNAN', PUTHIYANGADI, PUTHIYAVALAPPU, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 1991 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE F.I.R DTD. 16.4.08 OF THE PAYANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C. NO. 260/08 DATED 27.3.2010. ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 416/08 DATED 16.9.2010. ANNEXURE A4 : COPY OF THE DIVORCE AGREEMENT DATED 15.9.2010. ANNEXURE A5 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT MADE BY COMPLAINANT ON 21/9/2010 FOR RS. 4,45,000. ANNEXURE A6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO. 368/2008 DATED 22/9/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE JFCM COURT, PAYYANNUR. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 1991 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the 4th accused and brother of 1st accused in Crime No.149 of 2008 of Payangadi police station and CC No.676 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur for offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC. The case is that petitioner and others subject the 2nd respondent to cruelty. Accused 1 to 3 were acquitted by Annexure-A6 judgment since none of the material witnesses cited by prosecution supported it. As petitioner was not available the case against him was re-filed as CC No.676 of 2010. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings contending that parties have settled the dispute and in view of Annexure-A6 judgment. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is seen from Annexure-A6 judgment that 2nd respondent did not speak to the prosecution case. She denied that any of the accused had subjected her to cruelty. PW2 and PW3 cited to prove the alleged cruelty also did not support the prosecution. Annexure-A4 is a photocopy of agreement Crl. M.C No.1991/2011 -2- entered into between 1st accused and the 2nd respondent settling the dispute. Learned counsel confirmed genuineness and authenticity of that agreement. Annexure-A6 judgment affects the substratum of prosecution case. In the evidence, 2nd respondent has denied that she was subjected to cruelty by any of the accused and consequently accused No.1 to 3 were acquitted. In the circumstances I am inclined to think it is not necessary to continue the proceeding. Resultantly Crl. M.C is allowed. Proceeding against the petitioner in CC No.676 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur (4th accused in Crime No.149 of 2008 of Payangadi police station) are quashed. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE AMG True copy P.A to Judge