IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 322 of 2009() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN LP 68/2000 IN CC.594/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: ---------------------------- PAULSON, S/O.VARGHESE, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, CHALISSERY P.O., PIN 679536, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------- 1. PAVANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, THEKKOOTTE HOUSE, CHOWANNOOR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 322 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the absconding accused in C.C.No.732/1995 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, now pending as L.P.No.68/2000. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said proceedings contending that all disputes with first respondent, the complainant, were settled and in such circumstances, no purpose will be achieved by proceeding with the trial. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Aboot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC). Along with the petition, petitioner produced Annexure II judgment in C.C.No.732/1995, wherein accused 3 and 4 after trial was acquitted by the Magistrate. Though petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.4957/2008 before the Magistrate under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure to compound the offences, as the offence under Section 485 of Indian Penal Code is not a compoundable offence, the petition was dismissed. First respondent is represented by a Counsel. Crl.M.C.No.322/2009 -2- 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and first respondent submitted that in view of the settlement of all the disputes amicably by petitioner and first respondent, the case is to be quashed. 4. In view of the settlement of the disputes between petitioner and first respondent, there is no chance for a successful prosecution. When accused 3 and 4 were already acquitted after trial and the complainant in view of the settlement is not interested in prosecution and there is no chance of a successful prosecution, no purpose would be there by proceeding with the trial, except waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, L.P.No.68/2000 in C.C.No.594/1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, as against the petitioner is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr