IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 159 of 2011() ---------------------------------- C.C. NO.751/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR. ....... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.SAJINA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.K.MUHAMOOD, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. FAIZAL, VENMELIL HOUSE, UZHICHI, PERINGOME, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SAINABA, VENMELIL HOUSE, UZHICHI, PERINGOME, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. AFSATH, VENMELIL HOUSE, UZHICHI, PERINGOME, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. RAZACK, VENMELIL HOUSE, UZHICHI, PERINGOME, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.159 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of January, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed by the de facto complainant in Crime No.80 of 2009 of Payyannur Police Station and C.C.No.751 of 2009 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur to quash proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 4, her husband and his relatives. On the information given by the petitioner, Payyannur police registered Crime No.80 of 2009. Annexure-1 is the FIR. After investigation police submitted final report against respondent Nos.1 to 4 for offence punishable under Sec.498A r/w 34 IPC. Annexure-3 is the final report. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the said offence against respondent Nos.1 to 4 and filed C.C.No.751 of 2009. In the meantime, petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 4 settled the dispute and Annexure-2 agreement is executed between petitioner and respondent No.1. As per the said agreement, petitioner is to take necessary steps to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.751 of 2009. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor confirmed that the dispute is settled between petitioner and respondent Crl.M.C.No.159 of 2011 -: 2 :- Nos.1 to 4 and that as per the understanding between the parties, respondent No.1 is to make certain payments to the petitioner on termination of the criminal proceedings. 3. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, considered Annexure-2, agreement and the fact that parties have now amicably settled the dispute among them I am inclined to think that continuance of the proceeding is not required. The dispute is personal between petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 4. Cordial relationship now parties have, has to be maintained. In view of the settlement, there is also no possibility of a successful termination of the proceedings. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and Annexure-3, final report in Crime No.80 of 2009 of Payyannur Police Station, the cognizance taken and all further proceedings in C.C.No.751 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur will stand quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-