IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4037 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.938/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, HOSDRUG. CRIME NO.21/2009 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN @ ADRAN, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 21 YEARS, ZEENATH MANZIL, CHERUPANATHADY, PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN @ ANDUMAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.MUKRI ABDULLA, KUNDUNGAL HOUSE, PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. R2 BY ADV. SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4037 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 4th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in C.C.938/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-2 final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Rajapuram Police Station in crime No.21/2009, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that entire disputes were settled amicably with second respondent, the de facto complainant. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that Crmc 4037/10 2 entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-2 final report shows that prosecution case is that as the daughter of second respondent had lodged a complaint alleging that offences under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code is committed and based on the complaint, crime No.20/2009 was registered, petitioner called the second respondent in his cell phone and threatened him using obscene language and thereby committed the offences. Annexure-4 order in Crl.M.C.3781/2010 shows that matrimonial Crmc 4037/10 3 disputes with the daughter of second respondent and brother of petitioner were settled amicably accepting the composition and this Court has already quashed C.C.425/2009 taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. Affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that the dispute involved in the case was also settled amicably. Annexure-2 establishes that the offences alleged against the petitioner are purely personal in nature against second respondent. As second respondent has already settled settled the disputes with the petitioner, as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as consequent to the settlement Crmc 4037/10 4 there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.938/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.