IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2011 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1062 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.2386/2010 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION. ......... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8 ------------------------------------------ SARATH, S/O.PRATHAP, AGED 18, C-17, A.G.S. STAFF QUARTERS, MANAPPATTIPARAMBU, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, MR.ANIL R.NATH, MR.JAYAKRISHNAN. C.H. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEEPAK, S/O.DILEEP, AGED 20, RESIDING AT DEEPAK MANDIR, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., ATHANI, KAKKANADU, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030. 2. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE S.I. OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAIBY PAUL. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs P. Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.M.C. No. 1062 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 20th day of May, 2011 O R D E R This is a petition filed by the eighth accused in Crime No.2386/2010 of Thrikkakara Police Station to quash Annexure-A8 F.I.R. and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, as the matter has been settled between the parties. 2. The first respondent is the de facto complainant. There were eight accused in the above case. The allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons was that on December 4, 2010 at about 11.30 p.m. they called the de facto complainant and brought him to room No.207 at Karthika Residency, Kakkanadu and that thereafter, they wrongfully restrained him, assaulted him and robbed Rs.1,800/- and a mobile phone and a wrist watch and later took him in a Quallis car and abandoned him and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 342, 365 and 395 read with section 34 IPC. CRMC 1062/2011 2 3. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations against him, that he is a XII Standard student of I.G.M. Public School, Elamakkara, that he met with an accident and lost sight of left eye completely, that the matter has been settled between the first respondent/de facto complainant and an affidavit to that effect is produced as Annexure-A7 and that therefore entire proceedings in pursuance of Annexure-A8 F.I.R. may be quashed. 4. It is seen that Annexure-A7 is only a copy. Later the petitioner produced the original affidavit of the first respondent de facto complainant. Adv. Sri. K.H. Sakir appears for the first respondent/de facto complainant. He has also submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and he has no objection in quashing the F.I.R. even against other accused persons. 5. The Apex Court has held in B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003(2) KLT 1062 (SC)) and also in Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC)) that though the offences alleged against the petitioner were non- compoundable and if the parties had settled the matter and it CRMC 1062/2011 3 was not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, the entire proceedings can be quashed, exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the present case the petitioner has settled the matter with the first respondent/de facto complainant. Therefore no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending. Further the dispute was purely a personal one between the two contesting parties. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions and in the light of Annxure-A7 affidavit filed by the first respondent and for the reasons stated above, I feel that the entire proceedings in Annexure-A8 can be quashed. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in pursuance of Crime No. 2386 of 2010 of Thrikkakara Police Station are hereby quashed. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE . mn.