IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 813 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.4/2009 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- RAJESH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT RAJANY BHAVAN, PADUMOOLA, KATTAKKADA WARD, VEERANKAVU VILAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.G.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LAL PRASAD, S/O. BHARATHAN, AGD 36 YEARS, KURUVILA VEEDU, KURUVILA, KOLATHUKARA WARD, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (DEFACTO COMPLAINT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 813 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-A final report as against the petitioner. The accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable u/Ss.381, 408 and 420 IPC. The allegation is that he had taken the ATM card of the defacto complainant and withdrew a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from different ATM counters. The amount was recovered. Now the defacto complainant has filed an affidavit to the effect that all the disputes between him and the accused are settled and there is no further scope of further direction in the matter. It is also submitted that the accused is a relative of the defacto complainant and that further proceedings can be quashed. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that it is a dispute which is personal in nature and the matter has been settled invoking the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19) and Nikhil Crl.M.C. 813 OF 2009 -:2:- Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769(SC) a prayer is made to quash the proceedings. The Apex Court Court held that while invoking jurisdiction u/s 482Cr.P.C, it is the duty of the High Court to see what will be the end result of the prosecution, if it is permitted to continue. It is also stated that when the dispute is personal and it is settled there is no bar in quashing the complaint even if it is of a non- compoundable offence. Here the accused and complainant are relatives. They have settled the matter among themselves and the defacto complainant does not want to spoil the future of an young man aged 23 years. There is no point in allowing this litigation to continue obviously for the reason that the defacto complainant himself started the prosecution. So taking into consideration all these broad principles and in order to save the life and future of an young man I invoke the jurisdiction u/s 482Cr.P.C and quash all further proceedings in C.C.4/09 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore Crl.M.C. 813 OF 2009 -:3:- this Crl.M.C is allowed. In the light of the settlement the amount that is lying in the custody of the Court be returned to the defacto complainant. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-