IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4319 of 2010()
1. MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SASIKALA S., AGED 25 YEARS,
3. SASIDHARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.AJITH MURALI
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.DILEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :30/11/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.4319 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 30th November, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner is the first accused in
Crime No.779/2010 of Aranmula Police
Station registered on Annexure-A FIR for
the offences under Sections 363 and 188
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
based on the first information statement
furnished by the third respondent, father
of the second respondent. Petitioner and
second respondent are advocates practicing
in Pathanamthitta courts. Allegation in
Annexure-A FIR is that petitioner abducted
second respondent and thereby committed the
offences. Third respondent had filed W.P.
(Crl).No.337/2010 before this court
alleging that second respondent is in
Crmc 4319/10
2
unlawful confinement of the petitioner. By
Annexure-B judgment, writ petition was
dismissed finding that second respondent is a
major aged 25 years and an advocate by
profession. This Court has accepted her
assertion that she is not under any illegal
confinement or detention. Petition is filed
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash Annexure-A FIR contending
that when second respondent herself asserted
before the Division Bench of this Court that
she is not in the illegal confinement of the
petitioner, continuation of the proceedings
is only an abuse of process of the court. It
is also stated that he has settled all the
disputes with the second respondent.
2. Second respondent appeared
through a counsel and filed a joint petition
Crmc 4319/10
3
with the petitioner stating that when this
court in habeas corpus petition found that
second respondent is not in the illegal
detention or confinement of the petitioner
and second respondent has no grievance
against the petitioner, it is not in the
interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
3. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, second respondent and
learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that statement of the third
respondent recorded shows that he has not
settled the dispute and second respondent is
now studying in Bangalore.
5. Allegation in Annexure-A FIR is
that petitioner abducted second respondent.
Crmc 4319/10
4
Based on the same allegation third respondent
filed habeas corpus petition which was
dismissed by Annexure-B judgment after second
respondent appeared before the Division Bench
and asserted that she was not in any illegal
confinement or detention. Joint statement
filed by the second respondent with the
petitioner establishes that in the mediation,
entire disputes were settled between the
petitioner and second respondent and she has
no objection for quashing the proceedings.
6. Petitioner and second respondent
are lawyers, second respondent, the alleged
victim of abduction has settled all the
disputes with the petitioner. She has also
stated that she has no grievance against the
petitioner. Hence it is not in the in the
interest of justice to continue the
Crmc 4319/10
5
prosecution as ultimately, there is no
likelihood of a successful prosecution.
Petition is allowed. Crime
No.779/2010 of Aranmula Police Station is
quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.