MONCY MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused in Crime No.352 of 2006 of Sooranadu Police Station and C.C. No.880 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcotta for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. PETITIONERS request this Court to quash proceeding on the strength of a settlement reached with the second respondent.

(2.) NOTICE of this proceeding was issued to the second respondent. She was served with the notice but there is no response. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) I have gone through Annexure-III, photocopy of the agreement dated 30.05.2009. Terms of settlement are mentioned therein. There is also reference to O.P.(HMA) No.591 of 2008 and second respondent undertaking to withdraw her claim in Crime No.352 of 2006. In paragraph 2 of the agreement it is stated that in case first petitioner files petition in the High Court to quash proceeding in Crime No.352 of 2006, second respondent would have no objection to that and will file an affidavit to that effect.