IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 621 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.388/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.804/2008 OF KASARAGOD POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ----------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, MOGRAL PUTHUR HOUSE, P.O.MOGRAL PUTHUR, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. IBRAHIM, AGED 63 YEARS, MOGRAL PUTHUR HOUSE, P.O.MOGRAL PUTHUR, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 3. DAINABI, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. IBRAHIM, MOGRAL PUTHUR HOUSE, P.O.MOGRAL PUTHUR, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAMEELA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. K.B.ABDULLA, KUNJAR HOUSE, ARJUNAMKUZHI, P.O.PATLA, PATLA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.LISHA.M.G. FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.621 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.804 of 2008 of Kasaragod Police Station and C.C.No.388 of 2009 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that petitioners subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty demanding more ornaments. Police investigated the case and submitted Annexure-A2, final report alleging commission of offence as above stated. Petitioners seek to quash proceedings against them on the strength of a compromise reached with respondent No.2. 2. I heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has confirmed the fact of settlement and authenticity of signature of respondent No.2 in Annexure-A3 and A4, photocopy of the agreement and the affidavit. 3. It is seen from the photocopy of Annexure-A3, agreement that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute between them subject to the terms and conditions stated therein. In Annexure-A4, affidavit of respondent No.2, authenticity of which is confirmed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 it is stated that dispute with petitioner No.1 is settled and that she has no objection in quashing proceedings against petitioners. Crl.MC No.621/2011 2 4. Since the dispute is purely personal to and between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and that dispute is settled between the parties I do not consider it necessary to allow the proceeding to continue. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-A2, final report in Crime No.804 of 2008 of Kasaragod Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C.No.388 of 2009 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks