IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1877 of 2010()
1. C.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,S/O.CHANDRASEKHARA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MEDICA
3. SHEEJAMONI,T.C.NO.50/20-1,KWR-106,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :31/08/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1877 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.276/2009 on
the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s
Court, Thiruvananthapuram, taken cognizance for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 427 and 447
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, filed
this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to quash the proceedings contending that
entire disputes with the third respondent, the
defacto complainant, were settled amicably and in
view of the settlement, it is not in the interest
of justice to continue the prosecution.
2. Prosecution case is that being agitated by
the demand for Rupees Two lakhs made by the third
respondent, petitioner, along with unidentified
persons, destroyed the flex boards and electric
bulbs in Building No.TC-2/1994-1 at about 5 p.m. on
22.2.2009 and also destroyed the lights on the hind
CRMC 1877/10 2
side of her Santro car and caused damages to its
door and body by rubbing with a stone and she was
also threatened with dire consequences.
3. Along with the petition, petitioner produced
Annexure-D affidavit of the third respondent to the
effect that entire disputes between the parties
were settled amicably and she has no subsisting
grievance against the petitioner and therefore, she
has no objection for quashing the proceedings
against the petitioner.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that statement of the third respondent
was recorded by the Investigating Officer and the
statement shows that entire disputes with the
petitioner were settled amicably.
5. Except the offence under Section 294(b) of
Indian Penal Code, all the other offences are
compoundable. Considering the fact that entire
disputes were settled amicably with the third
respondent and the offences alleged are purely
CRMC 1877/10 3
personal in nature, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue with the prosecution as held by
the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of
Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Manoj Sharma v. State
(2009 (4) KLT 417) and Nikhil Merchant v. Central
Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 428).
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.276/2009 on the
file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s
Court, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioner
is quashed.
31st August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv