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. 4765 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CC.1171/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 18/2010 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ------------------------------------------------- 1. V.P.NOUSHAD, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AYSHA MANZIL, BEHIND MATTAMAL JUMA MASJID, P.O.ELAMBACHI, THRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. LATHEEF, S/O.M.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AYSHA MANZIL, BEHIND MATTAMAL JUMA MASJID, P.O.ELAMBACHI, THRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. V.P.DAVOOD, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AYSHA MANZIL, BEHIND MATTAMAL JUMA MASJID, P.O.ELAMBACHI, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. ALI ABDULLA @ KUTTYALI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA MOIDEEN, PARAYATH HOUSE KAITHAKKAD, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): STATE: ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STAITON, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABOOBACKER, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, MUHSINA MANZIL, ANACHAL, KOTTAPURAM P.O., NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN-671 341. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM R2 BY ADV. SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRF 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.4765 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.1171/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasaragod, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-2 final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaragod Police Station. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Crmc 4765/10 2 prosecution. It is contended that first petitioner was the husband of Muhsina, daughter of second respondent and subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose and C.C.1121/2009 was taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg and by Annexure-4 order in Crl.M.C.4542/2010, accepting the settlement of the matrimonial disputes, that case was quashed and in such circumstances, 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 with the petitioners were settled and first petitioner was his son-in-law and the other accused, his brother and cousin brothers and matrimonial disputes were settled Crmc 4765/10 3 and consequent to the settlement C.C.1121/2009 was quashed by this Court and as the entire disputes were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-2 final report shows that the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature against the second respondent. Prosecution case is that on 4/1/2010 at about 1 p.m petitioners along with unidentifiable accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with the common object of causing hurt to the second respondent and in furtherance of their common object, caused hurt to the second respondent by beating with their hands and caused grievous hurt to his left Crmc 4765/10 4 hand including a fracture and thereby committed the offences. The offences are purely personal in nature against the second respondent. Affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC ), when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and second respondent has settled the disputes with the petitioners, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.1171/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasaragod is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.