IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.50/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. HARIS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMANKUTTY, HASSAN KANAKATH HOUSE, PONNANI AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL RAHIMANKUTTY, HASSAN KANAKATH HOUSE, PONNANI AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RAHAMATH, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMANKUTTY, HASSAN KANAKATH HOUSE, PONNANI AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FAREEDA, D/O.ABDULLA, VAISIAMVEETTIL-KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, PUDUMANASSERY DESOM, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, P.O.PAVARATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 507. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU R2 BY ADV. SRI.PLEASANT.T.SAMUEL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1628 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.558 of 2008 of Pavaratty Police Station and C.C.No.50 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered on a complaint preferred by the second respondent. Petitioners request to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with the second respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Annexure-3 is the copy of agreement dated 17.12.2008 executed between first petitioner and second respondent whereby the dispute was settled. Annexure-4 is the affidavit of second respondent stating that the dispute is settled between herself and first petitioner and hence she does not want to proceed against petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners and second respondent have confirmed the settlement, authenticity and genuineness of Annexure-3, agreement dated 17.12.2008 and Annexure-4, affidavit sworn by second respondent. Since the dispute is personal to and between first petitioner and second respondent and that the same is settled between parties I am inclined to allow the request. Crl.MC No.1628/2011 2 Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.558 of 2008 of Pavaratty Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.50 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks