IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4760 of 2010() ------------------------------------ ( CRIME NO. 177 OF 2004 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION C.C. 1168/2004 JFCM-I ERNAKULAM ------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AZEEZ, S/O.SEYD MOHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS, NALADYTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, S.R.M. ROAD, KOCHI-18 ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION. 2. ABDUL VAHAB, S/O. SULAIMAN KUNJU, AGED 62 YEARS, MADATHINGAL HOUSE, S.R.M ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.SONY ANTONY THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4760 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.1168/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-2 final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent, who is father-in-law of the petitioner, were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of Crmc 4760/10 2 justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and he is not interested in further prosecuting the petitioner and he has no objection to compound the offences or to quash the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-2 final report shows that prosecution case is that on 15/4/2004 at about 9.45 a.m, petitioner knocked at the door of the residential house of the second respondent and when the door was not opened, petitioner using filthy languages, scolded second respondent and also threatened him of dire consequences Crmc 4760/10 3 and thereby committed the offences. Affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioner, his son-in-law. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), when the offences are purely personal in nature and second respondent has settled the dispute with the petitioner, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.1168/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.