AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Nagaprasanna, J
On 30.03.2022, this Court noticing the compromise entered into between the parties had passed the order, which reads as follows:
“ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2022
Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for first respondent.
Issue emergent notice to the second respondent returnable by 12.04.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to take out hand summons on the second respondent.
The petitioner is before this court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.360/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506B of the IPC. The parties to the lis, during the pendency of the proceedings before the competent Court, have entered into a settlement and have also appended the settlement arrived at to this petition.
In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, I deem it appropriate to stall all further proceedings / investigation in Crime No.360/2010, till the next date of hearing. I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed accordingly.
List the matter on 12.04.2022.”
The parties have placed on record a joint affidavit of settlement. The relevant paragraphs of the joint affidavit read as follows:
“3. We state that the Respondent No.2, herein the Deponent No.2 informant filed a complaint against the petitioner and one named Sri Ramdas Kochhatil before the Respondent No.1 jurisdictional Police Station in Crime No.0360/2010 on 17.12.2010 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 506(B) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against the deponent No.1 and one named Sri Ramdas Kochhatil.
We state that we have settled our differences amicably and the present Crime was filed on misconstruction of facts and the Respondent No.2, the de-facto complainant conscious of the fact and also on the advice of the family and friends has agreed to compromise and settle the differences with us and intends not to prosecute the criminal proceedings.”
Respondent No.2 appearing in person submits that in the light of the settlement as arrived between the parties, he has no objection for the Court to pass appropriate orders.
In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, I deem it appropriate to terminate the impugned proceedings in crime No.360/2010.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is disposed.
(ii) The proceedings in crime No.360/2010 dated 17.12.2010, pending on the file of the 3rd CJM Court, Mysuru, stands quashed.