IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3779 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.109/2009 OF THIRUVAMBADY POLICE STATION. .......... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- JOSE.K.A, S/O.AUGUSTHY, KANIYARATH HOUSE, KAKKADAMPOYIL P.O, KOODARANHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. JOY @ THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS, CHOLIYIL HOUSE, KAKKADAMPOYIL P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVAMBADY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3779 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 26th day of November,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the de facto complainant and the injured in Crime 109/2009 of Thiruvambadi Police Station registered for the offence under section 341,324, 506(ii) and 308 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed to quash the FIR and all further proceedings contending that in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the first respondent it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Annexure 2 affidavit stating that on the intervention of family friends and mediators the entire disputes with the petitioner was settled and in view of the settlement he has no grievance against the petitioner and has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Crl.M.C.3779/2009 2 pointed out that eventhough an offence under section 308 of Indian Penal Code is alleged, there was no serious injury and the injury was only on the right upper arm of the left hand above the elbow and when the matter has been settled amicably with the first respondent, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the wound certificate shows that the only injuries inflicted are a lacerated wound 3x1cm. over left elbow and a lacerated wound 1x0.5cm over anterior aspect of upper arm. The wound certificate made available by the Public Prosecutor revealed that there was no born injury. It is clear that though an offence under section 308 of Indian Penal Code on the facts such an offence is not attracted. 6. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) when the offence alleged against the petitioner is purely personal in nature as against the first respondent and the affidavit filed by the first respondent establish that there was an amicable settlement of the disputes with the petitioner and he has no subsisting grievance as against the petitioner, even if ultimately a final report is filed and petitioner is to undergo the ordeal of a trial, chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak. In such circumstance, it is not Crl.M.C.3779/2009 3 in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. Crime No.109/2009 of Thiruvambadi Police Station is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006