IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4486 of 2010()
1. DILEEP, S/O.RAVI, T.C.14/1419,
... Petitioner
2. PRADEEP, S/O.PRABHAKARAN,
3. KUNJUMON, ATTARIKATHU VEEDU,
4. VINOD, S/O.VIJAYAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. NAYAB, S/O.CRUSIN SAIT, 'ROSHAN',
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :08/12/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4486 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused and second
respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.
389/2009 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, taken
cognizance for the offences under Sections 451 and
394 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I final report
submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Medical
College Police Station. This petition is filed
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash the proceedings contending that entire
disputes with the second respondent were settled
amicably.
2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel
and filed a compromise petition with the
petitioners stating that he has settled entire
disputes amicably.
CRMC 4486/10 2
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, second respondent and learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
4. Argument of the learned counsel is that when
entire disputes with the second respondent are
settled, it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution as held by the Apex Court
in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3)
KLT 19).
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
first petitioner is involved in twenty criminal
cases and second petitioner is involved in six
cases and all the petitioners are known criminals
and they were in jail under Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act for six months and
settlement has been procured by threatening the
second respondent.
6. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, I do
not find that offences alleged against the
CRMC 4486/10 3
petitioners are purely personal in nature so as to
quash the proceedings invoking the principles laid
down in Madan Mohan Abbot’s case (supra), as sought
for. When the offences alleged are not purely
personal in nature, it is not in the interest of
justice to quash the proceedings as sought for.
Petition is dismissed.
8th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv