IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 727 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.480/2010 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, HARIPAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. LIJU VARGHESE , AGED 32 YEARS, COMPANY EMPLOYEE, RESIDING AT E 11/72, 2ND FLOOR, HAUZ RANI, MALAVIGA NAGAR, NEW DELHI. 2. T.V.KURAIN, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT E 11/72, 2ND FLOOR, HAUZ RANI, MALAVIGA NAGAR, NEW DELHI. 3. LATHA KURIAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT E 11/72, 2ND FLOOR, HAUZ RANI, MALAVIGA NAGAR, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR, SMT.PRIYA. H. RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.727 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.363 of 2008 of Kareelankulangara Police Station and C.C. No.480 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Haripad for offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by the de facto complainant, wife of first petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and which was forwarded to the Haripad Police. Petitioners seek to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with the de facto complainant. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the compromise based on Annexure-A3, agreement the first petitioner and de facto complainant filed a joint petition in the Family Court, Alappuzha as O.P. No.856 of 2009 and that court passed Annexure- A4, order granting divorce. Thereafter the de facto complainant got married, it is pointed out by the learned counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction submitted that the de facto complainant is not available in her locality, nor could her parents also be traced. CRL.M.C. No.727 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. It is seen from Annexure-A3, photocopy of agreement executed between first petitioner and de facto complainant that all the disputes between them were settled. In page 2 of Annexure-A3 it is stated regarding Crime No.363 of 2008 referred above that final report has not so far been filed in court and that in case final report is filed, de facto complainant will speak in favour of petitioners. It is also seen that acting upon the said agreement the Family Court has granted divorce on mutual consent as seen from Annexure-A4, order. Hence genuineness of Annexure-A3, agreement need not be doubted. 3. It is seen from Annexure-A3, agreement that parties have settled the dispute. In such a situation it is not necessary that proceeding against petitioners should continue. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.363 of 2008 of Kareelankulangara police station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C. No.480 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Haripad against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv