High Court Kerala High Court

Aji @ Ajith vs State Of Kerala And Another on 18 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Aji @ Ajith vs State Of Kerala And Another on 18 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 559 of 2010()



1. AJI @ AJITH
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.DINESH

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :18/02/2010

 O R D E R
            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
          ===========================
           CRL.M.C.No. 559   OF 2010
          ===========================

    Dated this the 18th day of February,2010

                     ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in S.C.1355/2009

on the file of Assistant Sessions Court,

Nedumangad being tried for the offence under

section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Second

respondent is the prosecutrix. This petition

is filed under section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure to quash the case pending

before the Assistant Sessions Court contending

that the entire disputes with the second

respondent prosecutrix is settled and in view

of the settlement, it is not in the interest of

justice to continue the prosecution.

Petitioner has also produced a petition signed

by the second respondent, stating that she has

settled the disputes with the petitioner and

she was subsequently married and is leading a

Crl.M.C.559/2010 2

happy marital life.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were

heard.

3. The fact that the Apex Court in Madan Mohan

Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) held that

even non compoundable offences can be quashed

exercising the powers under section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, does not mean that all

cognizable offences have to be quashed accepting

the settlement of the parties. An offence under

section 376 IPC cannot be termed as purely personal

in nature, as it is an offence against the Society.

In such circumstances, the case cannot be quashed

as sought for by the petitioner. It may be that if

the prosecutrix turns hostile to the prosecution

and there is no other evidence to establish the

commission of rape, Assistant Sessions Judge may be

compelled to acquit the petitioner on evidence.

That is not a ground to quash the proceedings as

Crl.M.C.559/2010 3

sought for. Learned counsel then submitted that

Assistant Sessions Judge may be directed to

expedite the trial.

Petition is dismissed. Assistant Sessions

Judge, Nedumangad is directed to expedite the trial

of S.C.1355/2009.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006