IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 4924 OF 2010() --------------------------------------- SC.596/2008 OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KRISHANAN KUTTY, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR PARAKKOTU ,MALAYAMMA PO, CHATAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. LEELA M.K, W/O.RAGHAVAN PARAKKOTTU, MALAYAMMA PO,PIN 673 601, CHATAMANGALAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY SHO KUNNAMANGALAM, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SIJU MATHEW FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4924 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in S.C.No.596 of 2008 of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Prosecution case is that on 09.01.2008 at about 10 a.m. while respondent No.1, the defacto complainant was sweeping the road petitioner called her by caste name in public view with intent to insult her, patted on her buttack, assaulted her and thereby committed the said offences. The Kunnamangalam Police after investigation submitted final report alleging commission of the said offences. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 that the matter is amicably settled between the parties as revealed from Annexures-A3 and A4, joint petition filed by petition and respondent No.1 and the agreement executed between them. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and the Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor on getting instructions has submitted that the matter is settled between the parties. It is seen from Annexures-A3 and A4, the joint petition and agreement signed by petitioner and respondent No.1 that the matter is amicably settled between the parties. Largely Crl.M.C.No.4924/2010 2 the success of prosecution case depended on the evidence that respondent No.1 is required to give in the court. In the light of Annexures-A3 and A4 there is no possibility of a successful culmination of the prosecution. Petitioner and respondent No.1 are neighbours. The harmonious relationship parties have now reached has to be maintained. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. In the result, the petition is allowed. The final report in Crime No.188 of 2008 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, committal proceedings and all other proceedings in S.C.No.596 of 2008 of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode concerning petitioner are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks