IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4605 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- [CC.NO.118/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR IN CRIME NO. 55/2009 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, IN KOLLAM DISTRICT] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SYAM, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, MEYANNOOR CHERI, PALLIMON VILLAGE, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUMA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.SULOCHANA, SUMA BHAVANAM, NEAR ASSISIA MEDICAL COLLEGE, MEYANNOOR CHERI, PALLIMON VILLAGE, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM, R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4605 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 13th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.118/2009 on the file of Munsiff- Magistrate's Court, Paravoor, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final report. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes were settled with the Crmc 4605/10 2 petitioner and consequent to the settlement, she has no interest to continue the prosecution and hence she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-A final report shows that prosecution case is that on 17/11/2008 at about 8.30 p.m, petitioner had taken photograph of the second respondent in his mobile camera and when the petitioner did not delete the photo, and second respondent questioned the same and then with the intention to outrage the modesty of the second respondent, petitioner caught hold of the hand and thereby committed the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Affidavit filed by the second Crmc 4605/10 3 respondent establishes that she has settled entire dispute with the petitioner. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), when the offence alleged against the petitioner is purely personal in nature against the second respondent and consequent to the settlement, even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a conviction and prosecution will serve no purpose, except wasting the valuable time of the Court, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.118/2009 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Paravoor is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.