IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 642 of 2010()
1. SUBIN, PUTHUPARAMPIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
2. ANEESH, KOTTAKKAMALI COLONY
3. ABHILASH, KALATHINTE THEKKETHIL HOUSE
4. ANOOP, MANOJ BHAVAN
5. MDHUSOODANAN NAIR
6. SIJU THOMAS
7. NIYAS,
8. SILVISOR
9. K.J.SEBASTIAN
10. SUMESH
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. PADMA JAYACHANDRAN, W/O.JAYACHANDRAN
3. PREETHY JAYACHANDRAN,D/O.JAYACHANDRAN
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :12/03/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.642 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused and respondents 2 and
3, the defacto complainants and the injured in C.C.
No.913/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvalla, taken cognizance for
the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and
427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution case is that on 6.6.2003 at about 7.45
p.m., the ten accused formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly with the common object of trespassing
into the house of respondents 2 and 3 and to cause hurt
to the second respondent due to the enmity that son of
the second respondent had shifted the allegiance from
DYFI and in furtherance of the common object,
trespassed into the house and abused first respondent
and inflicted injury on her and when third respondent,
the daughter, intervened, she was pushed, causing her
to fall down and petitioners also caused damages to the
tune of Rs.25,000/- by breaking the electric bulbs and
glasses of the windows and doors and thereby, all the
CRMC 642/10 2
accused committed the offences. This petition is filed
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash the cognizance taken contending that entire
disputes with the petitioners were settled by
respondents 2 and 3 and they have no subsisting
grievance against the petitioners and in view of the
settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel
and filed separate affidavits stating that they have
settled all the disputes with the petitioners and they
are not interested in prosecuting the case further, as
they have no subsisting grievance against the
petitioners and they have no objection for quashing the
proceedings.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
statement of the second respondent was taken
subsequently and the statement also discloses that
there was settlement.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public prosecutor were
heard.
CRMC 642/10 3
5. Affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3
establish that there was complete settlement of the
disputes with the petitioners. As held by the Apex
Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3)
KLT 19), when the offences alleged are purely personal
in nature and it is established that there was
settlement of all the disputes and consequent to the
settlement, there is no likelihood of a successful
prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution. As it is established that
there has been a complete settlement of the disputes,
it is not in the interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.913/2003 on the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvalla
is quashed.
12th March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv