IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1261 of 2010 -------------------------------------- CC.87/2008 of JFCM-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: K.KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 44 YEARS, JAYA MANDIRAM, VATTAVILA, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ANITHAKUMAR.T, AGED 42 YEARS, PRS SANGEETH APARTMENT, NEAR SWATHI TIRUNAL MUSIC COLLEGE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.B.PRAMOD FOR R1 ADV. SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1261 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 87/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I complaint filed by the second respondent. When the case was pending before the Magistrate, second respondent filed Annexure-II petition stating that entire disputes with the petitioner were settled and therefore, the case need not be prosecuted. As an offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, learned Magistrate did not permit the party to compound the offence. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that when entire disputes with the second respondent CRMC 1261/10 2 were settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and submitted that second respondent has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and submitted that fact before the Magistrate and therefore, second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Offence alleged against the petitioner is purely personal in nature as against the second respondent. Petition filed by the second respondent before the Magistrate establishes that she has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when the offence alleged is purely personal in nature and second respondent has settled the disputes with the CRMC 1261/10 3 petitioner and consequent to the settlement, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.87/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed. 9th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv