O R D E R

Annexure-A3 order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in M.C.No.32/2016 is under challenge in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case. During the cross examination of the 1^st respondent she was confronted with Annexure-A1 settlement dated 02.05.2013 executed before the Probation OfÏcer, Ernakulam. Perusal of Annexure-A2 deposition of the respondent shows that she has admitted that a settlement was arrived before the Probation OfÏcer. However, marking of Annexure-A1 was objected before the learned Magistrate by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned Magistrate refused the request to the mark the document for two reasons. First reason given in Annexure-A3 is that the document is not relevant to design want of lumpsum amount and maintenance amount to be paid to the 1^st respondent. The second reason given is that the document is a contract/agreement, but unstamped. Stating these two reasons the document is not permitted to be marked in evidence. I am of the view that the reason in Annexure-A3 order cannot be sustained. Whether the settlement between the parties reflected in Annexure-A1 as any relevance or not is a matter which can be considered during the stage of hearing. Annexure-A1 is not a contract or agreement as observed by the learned ACJ. It is only a settlement arrived with the intervention of Probation OfÏcer. Such a settlement need not be stamped. Therefore I set aside Annexure-A3. Annexure-A1 document shall be permitted to be marked in evidence. However, the relevance, validity and evidentiary value of the same shall be decided by the learned ACJ at the appropriate stage of trial. Both parties shall be liberty to raise their contentions regarding the evidentiary value of Annexure-A1 during the time of hearing.

With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of.