Shamnad Salim v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/20TH KARTHIKA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 7146 of 2015 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LP 35/2013 of C.J.M., THRISSUR CRIME NO. 794/2011 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER(S):
--------------
1. SHAMNAD SALIM, S/O. SALIM RAVUTHAR, SANJU MANZIL, NALUMUKKU, MAMKUZHI P.O., VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.
2. SUNIL, S/O.KUMARAN AKASH BHAVAN, PALLARIMANGALAM, MAVELIKKARA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
3. AMBILI, W/O.VENU ATTINGAL HOUSE, NEAR CLASSIC APARTMENT, AYYAMTHOL THRISSUR BY ADVS.SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
2. VIDYA, D/O.SOUMINI, AGED 24 YEARS, AMBADI HOUSE, MEPADI DESAM, DO VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 673 577. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MADHUBEN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7146 of 2015 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.794/2011 PENDING BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE A2 - AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE Pn
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------------- Crl. M. C. No. 7146 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.794/2011 of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur now pending before the CJM Court, Thrissur as L.P. No.35/2013, for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
2.
The case set up in the present Crl. M.C. is that, the entire dispute arises out of a transaction and the complaint was lodged on a misunderstanding. It is stated that, both parties have settled the matter amicably. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit stating that she does not propose to pursue the matter and the matter has been settled. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent endorsed it.
3.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
4.
Evidently, the dispute appears to be a private nature. No public interest of the society is involved as such. Since the parties have voluntarily and amicably settled the entire dispute, I feel that, further continuance of the proceedings may not be
Crl. M. C. No. 7146 of 2015 required.
Hence all further proceedings in L.P. No.35/2013 of the CJM Court, Thrissur stands quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly. Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
/true copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn