IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 333 of 2011()
1. NOUSHAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. NISHITHA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :04/02/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.333 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.295 of 2004 of Anthikkad Police
Station and the sole accused in C.C.No.723 of 2007 of the court of learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur. Respondent No.2, wife of petitioner
filed a private complaint against petitioner and two others before the learned
Magistrate. That complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police after investigation
submitted final report against petitioner and others for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 406, 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Accused Nos.2 and 3 faced trial and were acquitted since the matter
was settled between the parties and there was no evidence against them. Since
petitioner was not available, case against him was split up and refiled as
C.C.No.723 of 2007. As his presence could not procured case was included in
the Long Pending Register as L.P.R.No.357 of 2008. Petitioner on the strength
of the settlement with respondent No.2 now seeks to quash proceedings
against him.
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
Crl.MC.No.333/2011
2
3. It is seen from Annexure-D, affidavit sworn by respondent No.2
that the matter is settled between the parties and petitioner and respondent No.2
have decided to separate. The affidavit also states that accused Nos.2 and 3
who faced the trial in C.C.No.755 of 2004 were acquitted. Learned counsel on
both sides submitted that the acquittal was since the matter was settled between
the parties and there was no evidence against those accused. Same fate await
the trial in C.C.No.723 of 2007 also if at all the parties go for trial, in the light of
Annexure-D, affidavit. Petitioner and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute
and decided to separate. In the circumstances proceeding with the case
against petitioner is of no use and is futile. Hence I am inclined to allow this
petition.
Resultantly this petition is allowed. The final report in Crime No.295 of
2004 of Anthikkad Police Station, cognizance taken thereon, proceedings in
C.C.No.723 of 2007 and L.P.R.No.357 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial
First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur against petitioner are quashed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks