IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3220 of 2010() ------------------------------------ MC.104/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- AMBAYATHINGAL UMMERKOYA HAJI, S/O.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY HAJI, AMBAYATHINGAL HOUSE,P.O.CHELEMBRA, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL, SRI.B.JEEVAN (ALAPPUZHA). RESPONDENT/STATE, APPLICANT & OTHER RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHELOOTTIL SAFIYA, D/O.CHEKKUTTY, CHELLOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.KOLAKKATTUCHALI, CHELEMBRA AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KUNDALKUZHI ASHRAF, S/O.MUHAMED, KUDALKUHI HOUSE, PUTHOOR DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 4. AMBAYATHINGAL MUHAMED KOYA, S/O.ALIKUTTY, ALINAS MANZIL, P.O.CHALIYAM KADALUNDY AMSOM, PAZHAMCHANNUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SNT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF, R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHAJI . THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3220 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the first respondent in M.C. No.104/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Parappanangadi to quash the proceedings. M.C.No.104/2009 was initiated by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-I petition filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Case of the petitioner is that there are several proceedings between the parties pending before the Family Court and all those disputes were settled by executing Annexures-III and IV agreements, whereunder, second respondent has agreed to withdraw the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and as second respondent did not withdraw the petition, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1986/2010 and it was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Annexure-X order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. CRMC 3220/10 2 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-X order. The question whether Annexures-III and IV agreements were executed and the respective parts to be performed were performed are all matters to be considered by the learned Magistrate on evidence. Hence, learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the petition under Annexure-X order. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. If the grievance of the petitioner is that he may have to appear in person for trial before the learned Magistrate on each posting day, necessary directions could be issued to be Magistrate not to insist for the presence of the petitioner at the time of trial. If an application under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner, learned Magistrate to grant exemption from personal appearance. Petition is disposed. 23rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv