IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH APRIL 2011 / 6TH VAISAKHA 1933 CRL.MC.NO. 1289 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- CC.795/2006 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.AVARAN, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, PANDIMUTTAM, NANNAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PATHUMMA, W/O.AVARAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR POLICE STATION, TANUR- 676302, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KHAIRUNNEESA, D/O.SAITHALAVI, CHEKKUMARAKKARAKATH HOUSE, TANUR P.O. - 676302, VAZHAKKATHERU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M. NAZER ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1289 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.323 of 2006 of Tanur Police Station and C.C. No.795 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint filed by the second respondent, wife of first petitioner before the learned Magistrate and forwarded to the police for investigation. Annexure-A2 is the final report. Petitioners say that they have settled the dispute with the second respondent and in the circumstances request to quash the proceeding against them. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Counsel for petitioners and second respondent confirmed the settlement and authenticity of Annexure-A3, agreement executed between the first petitioner and second respondent and Annexure-A4, affidavit sworn by the second respondent before and attested by a Notary Public. 2. It is revealed from Annexures-A3 and A4 that parties CRL.M.C. No.1289 of 2011 -: 2 :- have settled the dispute and accordingly the second respondent was divorced. It is also stated that first petitioner has paid the amount due to the second respondent as per the order in M.C. No.7 of 2009. In the circumstances there is no necessity to continue the proceeding. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A2, final report in Crime No.323 of 2006 of Tanur Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C. No.795 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv