IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 427 of 2011() ----------------------------------- C.C.685/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY. CRIME NO.339/2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DIST. ...................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3 --------------------------------------------------- 1. RENJITH @ SAJI, S/O RAVI, VALIYA VEEDU, CHERIYAZHIKKAL MURI, AALAPPADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 2. JYOTHISHMATHI, VALIYA VEEDU, CHERIYAZHIKKAL MURI, AALAPPADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN, SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA. RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NEENA, D/O. SAROJEM, KADAKAPPATTIL VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA MURI, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J. MOHEMMED ANZAR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.SURESH BABU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.427 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.339 of 2009 of Karunagappally Police Station and C.C. No.685 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 494 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint filed by respondent No.1 was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police after investigation submitted final report. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and Annexure-A2, the final report. Petitioners seek to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is revealed from the compounding petition as well as affidavit of respondent No.1 that the matter is settled between the parties. In the compounding petition counsel for the parties also have signed. In the circumstances there is no reason to reject the compounding petition and affidavit. Since the dispute is purely CRL.M.C. No.427 of 2011 -: 2 :- personal to and between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 (husband and wife) and that is settled amicably 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.339 of 2009 of Karunagappally Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceedings in C.C. No.685 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv