IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4041 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.389/2010 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA CRIME NO. 294/2007 OF PIRAVOM POLICE STATION ................ PETITIONER / ACCUSED : -------------------------------- - GEORGE, S/O.CHACKO VARKEY, MANJAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM, BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS VARGHESE, S/O.OUSEPH VARKI, CHIRAPPURATH HOUSE, MULAKKULAM, PIRAVOM, 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PREMSON PAUL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4041 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 5th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.389/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Muvattupuzha taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-B final report. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the first respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitioner also contended that second accused was tried by the learned Magistrate in C.C.56/2008, after splitting up the case against the Crmc 4041/10 2 petitioner and refiling it as C.C.389/2010, as he was absconding, as per judgment dated 19/8/2010, second accused was acquitted. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that it was only due to the failure of the petitioner to appear, when the case against second accused was tried, the case against petitioner was refiled, though the disputes were settled amicably. First respondent stated that consequent to the settlement, he has no grievance against the petitioner and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-B final report establishes that offences alleged against the petitioners Crmc 4041/10 3 are purely personal in nature. Except offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, other offences are compoundable. Second accused was already tried and acquitted. Affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that he has already settled the dispute with the petitioner and in such circumstances, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. 5. In such circumstances, 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, even if petitioner is to be tried. Petition is allowed. C.C.389/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Muvattupuzha is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.