IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2258 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CC.5014/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- SOORAJ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, VADAKKEMUTTAPPILLY HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN MR.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & CW2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DAVIS JOB, S/O.K.T.JOB, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE. 3. CHITHRU DAVIS, W/O.DAVIS, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.B. VINOD. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKEL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2258 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.5014/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ernakulam, taken cognizance by the Magistrate for the offences under Sections 452, 294 (b), 506(1) and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Case was registered recording the F.I. Statement of the second respondent/defacto complainant, the injured. Third respondent is his wife. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against the petitioner contending that subsequently there was a settlement of all the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and in such circumstances, in the interest of justice, the case is to be quashed. It is contended that offences alleged against the petitioner are of personal nature as against respondents 2 and 3 and as the CRMC 2258/09 2 disputes were settled, though all the offences are not compoundable, exercising the extraordinary powers of this Court under Section 482, the case is to be quashed, as declared by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19(SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)). 2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel and second respondent filed an affidavit to the effect that all the disputes with the petitioner were settled and they have no objection for quashing the case as against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The offences alleged against the petitioner are purely of personal nature committed against respondents 2 and 3. When all the disputes were amicably settled, as is clear from the affidavit of the second respondent as well as the submissions of CRMC 2258/09 3 the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, it is not, in the interest of justice, to continue the proceedings, as, even if the petitioner is to be tried, due to the settlement, chance of a successful conviction is very bleak. It would result only unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, C.C.No.5014/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ernakulam as against the petitioner is quashed. 16th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv