IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 980 of 2011() ---------------------------------- CC.105/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KOLENCHERRY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- ASOKKUMAR.B., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, VADUTHALAYIL HOUSE, KEECHAMBARA KARA, ERUMELI NORTH VILLAGE, MUNDAKKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOY C. PAUL, DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SINDHU, AGED 35 YEARS, (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) D/O. KOCHUKUTTAN, ARUPATHIL HOUSE, KUPPAKKAYAM KARA, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.R.RAJESH. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.980 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.324 of 2007 of Ambalamedu Police Station and C.C.No.105 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery for offence punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). That case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, wife of the petitioner. It is submitted that parties have settled the dispute and accordingly they have decided to part ways. Hence it is requested that proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. Annexure-A3 is the agreement said to be executed between petitioner and respondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel on both sides confirmed the settlement and authenticity of Annexure-A3, agreement signed by their respective parties. It is also submitted that as per the agreement, parties have decided to part ways. Petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the matter is settled. 3. Since the parties have settled the dispute among them which is purely personal, I am inclined to think that continuance of the proceeding is not required. Crl.MC Mo.980/2011 2 Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A2, final report in Crime No.324 of 2007 of Ambalamedu Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.105 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks