IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1877 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.276/2009 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM (CRIME NO.132/2009 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION). .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,S/O.CHANDRASEKHARA NAIR,RESIDING AT "KRIPA",RRA98,RISHIMANGALAM, VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MEDICA COLLEGE POLICE STATION,MEDICAL COLLEGE.PO, THIUVANANTHAPUAM. 3. SHEEJAMONI,T.C.NO.50/20-1,KWR-106, NIKUNJAM,PANDAKASSALA LANE,KALADI,MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KL. 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