IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4923 of 2010 ------------------------- (CRIME NO. 347/2010 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION CC.283/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------ ABBAS CHENGALA , S/O.ABDUL KAHADER HAJI AGED 35 YEARS, HIDAYATH NAGAR MUTTATHODI GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASARAGOD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOLIYAD HOUSE GUDDE TEMPLE ROAD, ADKATH BAIL PO KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PI 671 121. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. MR. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. R2 BY ADV. SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4923 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.347 of 2010 of Kasaragod Police Station and C.C.No.283 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. Petitioner is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). This petition is to quash the proceedings against petitioner pursuant to a settlement reached between him and respondent No.2. Learned counsel submitted that the dispute has been settled between petitioner and respondent No.2 as seen from Annexure-3, affidavit of the latter and in the circumstances continuance of proceedings is of no use. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a settlement is reached between petitioner and respondent No.2 and that Kasaragod Police has not informed that petitioner is involved in any other case. It is reported that petitioner is presently employed abroad. Learned counsel for petitioner, Shri T.Madhu asserts that petitioner is not involved in any other case. 4. It would appear that petitioner and respondent No.2 are relatives. Case is that on 08.04.2010 at about 2 p.m. petitioner contacted respondent No.2 over telephone, introduced him as the leader of a gang, threatened respondent Crl.M.C.No.4923/2010 2 No.2 and demanded Rupees two lakhs. Respondent No.2 is said to have given `.20,000/- to the petitioner and thereby petitioner is said to have committed offence punishable under Section 386 of the Code. 5. It is true that the offence under Section 386 of the Code is a serious in nature. But fact remained that petitioner and respondent No.2 are related, petitioner got employment, went abroad and he is not reported to be involved in any other case. This, learned counsel for petitioner also has asserted. In that situation cordial relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2 has to be maintained. Proceeding with the case may also affect the future of petitioner. Moreover, success of prosecution would depend on the evidence that respondent No.2 has to give. In these circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the final report in Crime No.347 of 2010 of Kasaragod Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and the proceedings in C.C.No.283 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod against the petitioner are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks