SIFSIL.C.V. and others v. Shafna d/o Kunhali and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **Crl.MC.No.928 OF 2013** **CRMC 1104/2012 DATED 25-06-2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA CC 905/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKARA CRIME NO.636/2011 OF Vadakara Police Station , Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **1 SIFSIL.C.V. AGED 39 YEARS S/O ABOOBACKER, BAITHUR RAHMA, CHEROOPA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2 ABOOBACKER AGED 59 YEARS KUTTIPURATH NOOR MAHAL HOUSE, CHELANOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3 AYSHAIBI AGED 54 YEARS W/O ABOOBACKER, KUTTIPURATH NOOR MAHAL HOUSE, CHELANOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **1 SHAFNA D/O KUNHALI, MALAYIL HOUSE, PONMERI AMSOM, PARMBIL DESOM, BATAGARA, KOZHIKODE DSITRICT, PIN:671 124.** Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 2 **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGEMULLAKKARIYIL R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP** ## **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 3 ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------Criminal M.C. No. 928 of 2013 -----------------------------------Dated this the 8[th ] day of December, 2020 ## **O R D E R** The prayer in the aforecaptioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under 482 of Cr.PC is as follows: _“......to quash Anx.III Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C No.905 of 2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Badagara, pending disposal of the Crl.M.C.”_ 2. Heard Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (accused persons), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R2 State of Kerala and Sri.T.K.Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1 (lady defacto complainant). 3. The case set up by the petitioners in the above afore captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case is broadly as follows: _The petitioners are the accused in C.C No.905 of 2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Badagara. The case arose out of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 498 A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the complaint were to be following effect :- That the first petitioner and first respondent got married on 5-112006. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner. At the_ Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 4 _time of marriage first respondent's father had given her gold jewellery weighing 102.5 sovereigns. After marriage they resided for some time in Abudhabi. While at Abudhabi the first respondent became pregnant, came back to Kerala and started residence at her parental house. The first respondent gave birth to a boy on 4-9-2007. Part of the jewellery given to the first respondent at the time of marriage was taken away by the accused stating various reasons. The accused also demanded an amount of 5 lakhs for the purpose of conducting the marriage of Fazeela, sister of the first petitioner. The first petitioner came down from Abudhabi on 27-5-2011 and stayed along with the first respondent till 5- 6-2011. During this period the petitioners used to harass the first respondent demanding that an amount of 5 lakhs should be paid towards dowry immediately. When the amount was not paid, the first accused assaulted the first respondent and left her house. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereupon the Badagara police registered Crime No. 636 of 2011 against the petitioners. The police after investigation filed final report alleging commission of offences under Sections 498 A and 406 against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and the case against the petitioners was numbered as C.C. 905 of 2011. In the meanwhile attempts were made to settle the dispute amicably through intervention of mediators acceptable to both parties. The first petitioner agreed to pay an amount of 1 lakh to the first respondent towards full and final settlement of all monetary claims, including Iddah and maintenance allowance. The parties agreed that the first petitioner would pronounce Talaq and divorce the first respondent on 29-02-2012. The first respondent agreed to co-operate with the petitioners for getting the petitioners acquitted in C.C. 905 of_ Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 5 _2011, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Badagara. The 1[st] respondent further agreed to cancel the order obtained by her in M.C. 146 of 2011 of the Family Court, Badagara. Incorporating the above terms, the first petitioner and first respondent entered into an agreement on 29-02-2012. On the basis of the understanding the first petitioner filed Crl.M.C No. 1104 of 2012 before this Court. The 1[st] respondent had engaged a lawyer to appear in the Crl.M.C and support the prayer for quashing the proceedings in C.C 905 of 2011. When the matter came up for admission before this Court, direction was issued to both parties to be personally present at 10.15 on 22-05-2012. As the first respondent did not appear on 22-5-2012 or the subsequent dates on which the case was posted, this Court expressed inability to quash the proceedings and observed that it would be better for the first petitioner to withdraw the Crl.M.C. The first petitioner thereupon sought permission to withdraw the Crl.M.C and this Court dismissed the Crl.M.C as withdrawn without prejudice to the first petitioner's right to challenge the proceedings pending before the Magistrate Court on all sustainable grounds available to the first petitioner. As the respondents 1 and 2 had deceived the first petitioner into granting divorce to the first respondent by promising to render necessary help for getting the order in M.C. 146 of 2011 set aside and for getting the further proceedings in C.C No.905 of 2011 quashed on the basis of the compromise, it was evident that respondents 1 and 2 had committed the offence of forgery by refusing to appear before the High Court and also by refusing to help in getting the maintenance order passed in MC 146 of 2011. It was in those circumstance, the first petitioner was compelled to file a complaint alleging commission of the offence of cheating against respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that further prosecution of the petitioners on the basis_ Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 6 _of Annexure-I complaint and cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate amounts to an abuse of process and is causing substantial injustice to the petitioners and is therefore liable to be quashed. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioners have filed the instant Crl.M.C under Sec.482 of Cr.PC with the abovesaid prayers._ 4. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 1 to 3 among the three accused in the instant impugned Anx.II FIR crime No.636/2011 of Badagara Police Station, Kozhikode, registered on 14-06-2011 for offence punishable under Secs.406 and 498A of the IPC in pursuance of Anx-I private criminal complaint dated 14-06-2011 filed by the 1[st] respondent, in which the learned Magistrate had issued orders under Sec.156 (3) of Cr.PC, whereby the police was directed to register a crime and conduct investigation into the allegations thereon. Thereafter, the police has thereafter duly completed the investigation and has filed the impugned Anx-III Final report/charge sheet in the impugned Anx-II crime No.636/2011 of Badagara Police Station and after taking cognizance, the matter is pending as Calendar Case, C.C No.905/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Badagara. 5. The 1[st] petitioner herein (A1) had earlier married to the 1[st] respondent. 2[nd] & 3[rd] petitioners (A2 & A3) are the father and mother 7 Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 respectively of the 1[st] petitioner (A1). The brief of the prosecution case is that, after the marriage of the abovesaid spouses, the petitioners have treated her with cruelty and harassment and that they had misappropriated her gold ornaments and have also demanded that she should bring in at least an additional amount of Rs.5 Lakhs and thereby the petitioners have committed the abovesaid offences. 6. It appears that due to the intervention of the well wishers and mutual friends on both sides, the 1[st] petitioner (A1) and the 1[st] respondent (lady defacto complainant) had resolved their disputes and have entered into Anx-IV memorandum of settlement agreement dated 29-02-2012, whereby it was agreed that the spouses would dissolve the marital relationship by the husband rendering Talaq to enable the 1[st] respondent to remarry and further that the husband would give an amount of Rs.1 Lakh to the wife in full and final settlement of all her claims in the matrimonial disputes. The abovesaid aspects are clear from condition Nos.1 & 2 of Anx.IV agreement. Further condition No.3, which is relevant for the present purposes, has provided that the 1[st] resp0ndent will take steps to Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 8 ensure the termination of the present impugned criminal proceedings at Calendar Case, C.C No.905/2011 on the file of the JFMC, Badagara, on the husband filing appropriate petition before this Court seeking for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in that regard. 7. As regards the payment of the abovesaid amount, it was provided that the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh will be initially handed over by the husband to the Advocates of both the parties and that on the quashment/termination of the impugned criminal proceedings with the due co-operation of the 1[st] respondent, the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh will be handed over to her. It will be profitable to refer to the conditions in Anx.IV agreement dated 29-02-2012, which read as follows: “1. രണ�� നമർക�ര�യ�ട� ഭ�വ� ച�ലവ�ലലക��, ട��ഴ� ടച�ല�ട�ട ��സ�� സ��� എന ന�ലക�� ക�ട!വ�ന�ള എല ആന�ക$ല%ങള!� കണക�ടല��ത* ഒന�� നമർക�രൻ രണ�� നമറ�ക�ര�ക* 1,൦൦,൦൦൦/- (ഒര� ലക�) ര$പ ഇലന ദ�വസ� നൽക�വ�ൻ ��ര���ന�ക�കയ�� ആയത രണ�� നമറ�ക�ര�യ�ട� �ദ%സന�യ അഡ:ലകറ* ദ�ല�പ എനവര�ട�യ�� ഒന�� പ�ർട�യ�ട� അഭ�ഭ�ഷകന�യ . അഡ:ലകറ* പ� ര�ജ�വ എനവടരയ�� ഏലപ�ക�ന��� ലകസ�ക�ര%ങൾ ��ർന* ഒന�� നമറ�ക�രന�� വ�ട!ക�ര�� ക�റ വ���കര�വ�ന ദ�വസ� ല�ൽ പറഞ അഭ�ഭ�ഷകർ . രണ�� നമറ�ക�ര�ക* �� ��ക നൽക�ന����ണ 2. 2012 29 ന ഒന�� രണ�� പ�ർട�ടയ ടF�G�വര� ��സ� " " �ല�ഖ ടച�ല Gന� പ�ർട� �$ന�� ലവരടപ��ത�വ�ന�� അ�പക�ര� �ല�ഖ ടച�ല യ കത* Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 9 രണ�� പ�ർട�ക�� വ�വ�ഹ� ന�ത�യ �ഹല�* ടസ�കടറ�ക�� നൽക�വ�ന��, 3. രണ�� ഒന�� ��യ�നടറ നമറ�ക�ര� നമറ�ക�രന�� ����പ���കള!ട�യ�� ലപര�ൽ വ�കര ജ�ഡ�ഷ%ൽ Fസ* ക�സ �ജ�സല��റ* ലക����- I, ��നപ�ടക 498 A �പക�ര� ന�ലവ�ല�ള C.C.905/2011 നമർ ലകസ Gഹ���നട�ട ലക���� ��ൻപ�ടകലയ�,Gഹ���നട�ട ലകരള ഹഹലക���� ��ൻപ�ടകലയ� �� ലകസ�ടല �പ��കള�യ ഒന�� നമറ�ക�രടനയ�� �റ!� ക�റ വ���കര�ക�ന�ള എല ന�പ��കള�ല�� രണ�� നമറ�ക�ര� ഒന�� നമറ�ക�രടനയ�� . �റ!� സഹ�യ�ക�ന��ടണന�� സമ��ച�ര�ക�ന� 4. വ�വ�ഹ ��കയ�യ ��സ�� സ��� എന ന�ലയക* രണ�� പ�ർട�യക* ഒന�� പ�ർട�യ�ൽ ന�ന�� ക�ട�ന�ള��യ " " ഇദ ടചലവ, ഭ�വ�ജ�വന��ശ� എന� ന�ലകള�ല�ള സ�ഖ% കണക�ക� ല�ൽ പറഞ ഒര� ലക� ര$പ ഒന�� നമറ�ക�രൻ രണ�� നമറ�ക�ര�യക* നൽക�നല��ട� രണ�� ല�ല�ൽ ഒന�� അതര� നമറ�ക�ര� നമറ�ക�രലന�ട ആന�ക$ല%ങടള�ന�� അവക�ശടപ��ന�ടല�ന�� അവക�ശട�ട!ടക�ണ* ഒന�� പ�ർട�യ�ട� ലപര�ൽ യ�ട��ര� രണ�� ന�യ�ന�പ��യ�� സ:�കര�ക�ന�ടല�ന�� പ�ർട� ഒന�� പ�ർട�യക* ഇ��ന�ൽ ഉറ�! നൽക�കയ�� . ടചയ��ര�ക�ന� 5. ഒന�� രണ�� �മ�ൽ ധന പ�ർട�യ�� പ�ർട�യ�� സ�Gന��ലയ�, സ:ർണ�ഭരണ സ�Gന��ലയ� ഒന�ച! ജ�വ�ച ക�ലത* അലന%�ന%��ള ടപര���റടതക�റ�ലച� അലന%�ന%� യ�ട��ര� �ർകങള!� പര���കള!� ഇല ത���, Gഹ���നട�ട വ�കരലക���� ��ൻപ�ടകയ�ള C .C .905/2011 നമർ ലകസ�� വ�കര ക����G ലക���� ��ൻപ�ടകയ�ളM.C.146/2011 നമർ ലകസല ട� ലവടറ ന�ലവ�ല�ല . ല�ൽ ന�യ�ന�പ��കടള�ന�� ത����ക�ന� ക�ര%ത�ന സ�വ�ൽ, �ക���നൽ ���ങ� യ�ട��ര� വ�ധ ന�യ�ന�പ��കള!��യ� ലക����ടയ സ��പ�ക�ന�ടല�ന�� . ഇര� പ�ർട�കള!� ഇ��ന�ൽ സമ��ച�ര�ക�ന� 6. ല�ൽ പറഞ ഒര� ലക� ര$പ ലഭ�ക�ന��ന�ൽ രണ�� നമറ�ക�ര� ഒന�� നമറ�ക�രടന��ടര Fയൽ ടചയ� വ�ധ� വ�കര ലക���� സമ�ദ�ച! Gഹ���നട�ട ക����G 10 Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 ��നപ�ടകയ�ള M.C.146/2011 നമർ ലകസ�ടല വ�ധ� .” റദ�ക�ന��ടണന�� സമ��ച�ര�ക�ന� 8. It is common ground that, in pursuance of Anx.IV agreement the 1[st] petitioner (husband) has complied with his obligations and had rendered _Talaq_ to dissolve the marital relationship to enable the 1[st] respondent to remarry. Further he had also handed over Rs.1 Lakh to the Advocates concerned, who appeared for both sides. However, from the submissions of both sides it appears that, subsequently there arose some disputes about the custody of the child and the 1[st] respondent was not willing to cooperate for quashment of the present impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement by filing appropriate petition under Sec.482 before this Court. Hence, it appears that the Advocates appearing on both sides had later returned back the amount to the 1[st] petitioner in view of the non co-operation of the 1[st] respondent and the impasse in the effectuation of the settlement agreement. It is also common ground that, thereafter the 1[st] resp0ndent has remarried sometime in 2014 and she is now leading her married life with her new husband and the child born to her in her previous marital relationship with the petitioner is also in her custody. It also Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 11 appears that the 1[st] petitioner herein has also re-married and two children are born in his subsequent marital relationship. 9. The main ground urged by the petitioners is to the effect that, the petitioners have complied with all their obligations in terms of Anx.IV agreement and that the 1[st] respondent after having accepted the terms and conditions of Anx.IV agreement with wide and open eyes and also after having secured the benefit thereof by getting the dissolution of the marriage in order to enable her to get remarried, has thereafter backtracked and resiled from her words for quashment of the present impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties. 10. Similar cases of this nature have come up for consideration before the Apex Court and various High Courts in cases as in _**Mohd. Shamim & others v. Nahid Begum (Smt.) & another**_ [(2005) 3 SCC 302] and _**Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal**_ [(2005) 3 SCC 299]. The latter was a case, wherein the execution of a deed of settlement between the parties was denied and it was held by the Apex Court that denial of execution of the deed of settlement was an afterthought and the same could not be Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 12 accepted in view of the fact that the settlement was arrived at through intervention of the court process and especially when the terms and conditions of the settlement appeared to be genuine. The Apex Court has quashed the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have already entered into an agreement for settlement and it was resiled therefrom by one of parties and taking into account the nature of the offences alleged, the terms and conditions of the settlement have to be effectuated and accordingly, has quashed the impugned criminal proceedings. This Court has also relied on the dictum laid by the Apex Court in decisions as in _**Mohd. Shamim**_ 's case supra [(2005) 3 SCC 302], _**Ruchi Agarwal**_ 's case supra [(2005) 3 SCC 299] etc, and has held in the decision in _**Thomas v. State of Kerala**_ [(2016) 1 KLT 694] that where an mediation settlement agreement has been entered into between the rival parties through the process of mediatory efforts and the parties thereafter cannot be permitted to resile or backtrack therefrom, after the settlement has come into force. The said case pertaining to settlement arrived at between the parties, later resulted in an award passed by the Lok Adalat and the same had come into effect and Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 13 substantial portion of the same was complied with and in that context, this Court held that the 2[nd] respondent therein cannot be permitted to resile from the settlement and to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners and accordingly, this court had quashed the impugned criminal proceedings by holding that the act of one of the parties to subsequently resile from the settlement after having taken benefit therefrom would amount to abuse of process of the prosecution measures are permitted to continue. Taking note of the nature of the offences involved, and the aspect that the parties cannot be permitted to backtrack from the settlement agreement, this Court has quashed the impugned criminal proceedings in that case. It may also be pertinent to refer to the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in _**Teena M.Ansari v. Rinoy Eappen**_ [(2019)(3) KLT 1114], wherein it has been held, though in the context of a civil proceedings, that after entering into a settlement through the process of mediation and after the court as well as the parties have acted upon the settlement, one of the parties cannot be permitted to unilaterally withdraw or resile from the same, etc. Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 14 11. In the instant case it is not disputed by the 1[st] respondent that Anx.IV is a settlement agreement arrived at between the parties and executed by the 1[st] petitioner herein (A1) and the 1[st] respondent (defacto complainant). It is also not in dispute that the 1[st] petitioner has complied with his obligations by rendering Talaq so as to dissolve the marital relationship to enable the 1[st] respondent to remarry. It is also not in dispute that the 1[st] petitioner has handed over the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh to the Advocates appearing on both sides, so that after the impugned criminal proceedings are quashed on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties and with due cooperation of the 1[st] resp0ndent, the amounts could be handed over by the said Advocates to her. It appears that due to some custody issue disputes relating to the child, the 1[st] resp0ndent had thereafter resiled from the said agreement and has not co-operated for ensuring the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement. 12. The abovesaid Crl.M.C has thus been filed as early as on 15-02-2013 and has been pending thereafter. It appears that the 1[st] resp0ndent had thereafter remarried sometime in the year 2014 and Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 15 she is leading her marital life with her new husband. Further it also appears that, the disputes relating to the custody of the child born in the marital relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and 1[st] respondent are also no longer subsisting and the custody of the said child is now with the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] petitioner has also remarried and he is having two children in the said second marital relationship and he is now employed in Gulf country. 13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is convinced that the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the aforestated judgements in cases as in _**Mohd. Shamim**_ 's case supra [(2005) 3 SCC 302], _**Ruchi Agarwal**_ 's case supra [(2005) 3 SCC 299] etc. and that of this Court as in _**Thomas**_ 's case supra [(2016) 1 KLT 694] could befittingly be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. However it appears that the settlement agreement at Anx.IV has been entered into between the parties as early as on 2902-2012. The amount covered thereby is Rs.1 Lakh. It is true that the 1[st] resp0ndent had not co-operated in the matter, which prolonged the agony till now. If she had co-operated in time, the amounts would also have been received by her in time. Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 16 14. During course of the hearing, this Court observed that the amount of Rs.1 Lakh covered by the settlement agreement may be on the lower side and taking note of the time factor and the payment has not so far been done, since the 1[st] respondent has not co-operated. This Court then suggested as to whether the 1[st] petitioner is willing to pay either interest on the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh as and when the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh is paid to the 1[st] respondent and or whether he could pay cost of this proceedings. The amount of Rs.1 Lakh was otherwise due for payment immediately after 29-02-2012, subject to the 1[st] respondent co-operating and fulfilling her obligations. Therefore, 6% on the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh calculated for the period for the last eight years would come to around to Rs.50,000/-. Since the said amount of Rs.1 lakh appears to be on the lower side and the payment was delayed, though not on account of the petitioners' conduct, the Court suggested that at least Rs.50,000/may also be paid by the 1[st] petitioner to the 1[st] respondent, as cost in this proceedings, apart from the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh so that the interest of the 1[st] respondent is also duly taken care of. 15. Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel for the appearing for Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 17 the petitioners would submit on the basis of instructions that if this Court so orders, the 1[st] petitioner will take steps to ensure that, not only the said amount of Rs.1 Lakh, but also an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost, will be paid to the 1[st] resp0ndent by remitting the same to her bank account or by tendering the same by cheque/demand draft, etc. This Court has so suggested that since the inherent extraordinary power of this Court preserved in terms of Sec.482 of Cr.PC is in substance and essence a discretionary jurisdiction, this Court thought that the proper and just exercise of the discretion may call for such intervention of this Court, so that the 1[st] respondent also does not feel lost in this so-called battle between the spouses, which has been continuing for quite a long time and since there could be complete quietus to the disputes. The abovesaid fair submissions made by the 1[st] petitioner are also recorded. 16. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed: _It is ordered that the impugned Anx.III Final report/charge sheet filed in crime No.636/2011 of Badagara Police Station, which_ Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 18 _has now led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C No. 905/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Badagara, as against the petitioners/accused and all further consequential proceedings thereof, as against the petitioners/accused will stand quashed and set aside, subject to the following conditions._ - _(a) The 1[st] petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.1 Lakh to the 1[st] respondent either by remitting the same to her bank account or tendering it by crossed cheque/Demand Draft in her name within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order._ - _(b) Further condition is that the 1[st] petitioner should pay an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost to the 1[st] respondent within one month thereafter and the said amount of Rs.50,000/- should also be remitted by him either to the bank account of the 1[st] respondent or by crossed cheque/Demand Draft payable, in her name._ - _(c) In case the 1[st] petitioner does not comply with the abovesaid conditions within the said time limit, then the 1[st] respondent will be at liberty to file an appropriate application to reopen this proceedings, which may then be considered by this Court appropriately._ - _(d) The counsel for the petitioners will file a verified petition before this Court immediately after the expiry of the abovesaid time limit of three weeks for payment of the said amount of_ Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 19 _Rs.1 Lakh. So also, the counsel for the petitioners may file a verified petition stating about honouring of the further condition of payment of further amount of Rs.50,000/- by producing necessary documents to prove such payment immediately on expiry of the time limit for payment of the said amount._ 17. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned as well as before the JFMC, Badagara, who is dealing with C.C No.905/2011, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** KAS Crl.M.C No. 928 of 2013 20 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14-06-2011.** **ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.636/2011 DATED 14-06-2011.** **ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.636/2011 DATED 30-09-2011** **ANNEXURE IV COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FIRST PETITIONER AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29-02-2012** **ANNEXURE V COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C NO.1104/2012 DATED 25-06-2012.** **ANNEXURE VI COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO.5171/2012 DATED 22-08-2012.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL**