IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 45 of 2010() ----------------------- CC.32/2005 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... (CRIME NO.759/2004 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJUKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, KANGAKKATIL VEEDU, KILIKOLLOOR MURI & VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJENDRAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, A.R.HOUSE @ VANAJAVILASOM, KILIMALLOOR, MANGADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DITRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SINDHU.K.Y, AGED 32, D/O.YESODHARAN, RESIDING AT KALLUDIKKIL VEEDU, MUTTATHUKONAM MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, KOZENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.45 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 4 in C.C.32/2005 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta now pending as L.P.8/2008. As petitioners were absconding, the case against them was split up and refiled as CC.No.1/2008. The other accused were tried in C.C.32/2005 . By Annexure-5 judgment those accused were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case pending against the petitioners contending that as entire disputes were settled with the first respondent/defacto complainant who was the wife of the first petitioner and the marriage of the first petitioner with the first respondent was dissolved by Annexure-A4 judgment of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in OP(HMA) No.538/2007 and Annexure-1 agreement was entered into by the first respondent and the 5th accused and in view of the settlement entire proceedings before the Magistrate is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor were heard. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there was settlement of all the disputes with the first respondent and consequent to the settlement, the case is to be quashed. No material has been produced to show that there was settlement between the petitioners and the first respondent. Annexure-1 agreement only shows that there was settlement of the disputes with the 5th accused. 5th accused was later acquitted by Annexure-5 judgment along with accused 2 and 3. Learned Public Prosecutor made available copy of the statement of the first respondent, recorded subsequent to the filing of this petition, which discloses no settlement at all. It is therefore submitted based on the alleged facts, the case cannot be quashed. 4. Based on Annexure-5 judgment the case cannot be quashed, as there was no necessity to adduce evidence as against the petitioners in that case and as held by the Full Bench of this court, Annexure-5 judgment cannot be relied upon to quash the case as against the absconding accused. 5. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioners are employed outside India and had come to India and a direction may be issued to the Magistrate to consider the application for 3 bail considering the facts stated by the petitioners herein, especially Annexure-5 judgment and Annexure-1 agreement. When the accused surrender and file an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. While considering the question whether the accused so surrendered are to be released or not, learned Magistrate is expected to consider all relevant circumstances. I find no reason to believe that the Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this court. Hence no direction is warranted. Petition is dismissed. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge cms