IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 768 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.211/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ---------------------- 1. HARIS, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, AKKARAPALLA HOUSE, POST ALAMPADY, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. RAHEEM, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALI, THASEENA MANZIL, ALAMPADY, KASARAGOD. 3. HAKKEEM, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, AKKARAPALLA HOUSE, POST ALAMPADY, KASARAGOD. 4. ASHRAF, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALI, THASEENA MANZIL, POST ALAMPADY, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. AFSA, AGED 22 YEARS, W/O.MOIDUTTY A., THAHUDDEEN MANZIL, ALAMPADY, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.LISHA.M.G. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV SMT M K PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.768 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.380 of 2010 of Kasaragod Police Station and C.C.No.211 of 2011 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod for offences punishable under Secs.452, 323, 324, 354 and 506(ii) r/w Sec34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per Annexure-A2, final report prosecution case is that on 14.04.2010 at about 11p.m petitioners trespassed into the house of first respondent due to the enmity towards her husband for complaining about petitioners to the police and assaulted the first respondent. Petitioners request to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with the first respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioners and first respondent confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for first respondent has also confirmed signature of first respondent in Annexures-A3 and A4, joint petition and the affidavit. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction submitted that the dispute is settled between the parties. Crl.M.C.No.768 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. The dispute, pure and simple is between petitioners and the first respondent. The dispute is settled between the parties. In view of that settlement it is not necessary to continue the proceeding. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.380 of 2010 of Kasaragod Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.211 of 2011 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-