IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1245 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.418/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER / ACCUSED : --------------------------------------- CHACKO, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.MANUEL, VIYATHRI HOUSE, MUTTINAKAM KARA, VARAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LAILA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.CHACKO, VIYATHRI HOUSE, MUTTINAKOM KARA, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1245 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.130 of 2003 of Varappuzha Police Station and C.C.No.418 of 2004 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Prosecution case is that petitioner wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the second respondent, his wife beating with a reaper which resulted in the fracture of big toe of the left leg. Petitioner requests to quash proceeding against him on the strength of a settlement. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Annexure-A2 is the compromise entered between petitioner and the second respondent. It is stated therein that the dispute is settled and pursuant to that settlement parties have decided to live together as husband and wife. Annexure-A3 is the affidavit of the second respondent where also it is stated that dispute is settled and that she has no further grievance. Learned counsel for petitioner and second respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel also confirmed authenticity and genuineness of Annexures-A2 and A3, agreement and affidavit signed by respective parties. Learned Public Prosecutor on getting instruction submitted that parties have settled the dispute. Crl.MC No.1245/2011 2 Though offence under Section 326 of the IPC is involved, since the dispute is purely personal to and between petitioner and second respondent, and that they have decided to live together as husband and wife, I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.130 of 2003 of Varappuzha Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.418 of 2004 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks