IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2024 of 2011() ------------------------- SC.20/2011 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------------- MONCY MATHEW, S/O. MATHAI, ELANCHAKKAL, KADAMANKULAM, KALLUPARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR. ADV. SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2024 of 2011 THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.2024 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.352 of 2006 of Sooranadu Police Station and C.C. No.880 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcotta for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners request this Court to quash proceeding on the strength of a settlement reached with the second respondent. 2. Notice of this proceeding was issued to the second respondent. She was served with the notice but there is no response. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel submitted that second respondent filed O.P(HMA) No.591 of 2008 before Family Court, Kottarakkara seeking divorce and while so, the entire dispute between first petitioner and second respondent was settled and an agreement was executed on May 30, 2009 as per which it was decided that parties would move a joint petition in O.P(HMA) No.591 of 2008 for divorce and that second respondent will not pursue her case in CRL.M.C. No. 2024 of 2011 -: 2 :- Crime No.352 of 2006 referred above. Annexure-III is the photocopy of the said agreement. 4. Since there was no response from the second respondent in spite of service of notice, learned Public prosecutor was directed to get instructions from the Investigating Officer in the matter. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that second respondent being in New Delhi in connection with employment could not be contacted by the Sub Inspector but he enquired about the alleged settlement with the father of second respondent. The Sub Inspector obtained his signed statement. Enquiry conducted by the Sub Inspector revealed that first petitioner and second respondent have settled all their disputes which resulted in the parties seeking divorce by a joint application in O.P(HMA) No.591 of 2008. After the order of divorce, first petitioner and second respondent got remarried and they are living with their respective spouses. 5. I have gone through Annexure-III, photocopy of the agreement dated 30.05.2009. Terms of settlement are mentioned therein. There is also reference to O.P.(HMA) No.591 of 2008 and second respondent undertaking to withdraw her claim in Crime No.352 of 2006. In paragraph 2 of the agreement CRL.M.C. No. 2024 of 2011 -: 3 :- it is stated that in case first petitioner files petition in the High Court to quash proceeding in Crime No.352 of 2006, second respondent would have no objection to that and will file an affidavit to that effect. 6. Notice of the proceeding which states about the settlement between parties and the prayer of petitioners to quash proceedings against them was served on the second respondent. As I stated she has no response which means that she has no objection in quashing the proceeding against petitioners. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.352 of 2006 of Sooranadu Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and all proceeding in C.C. No.880 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcotta against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv