IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1196 of 2010() ------------------------- SC.1228/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (ADHOC III)COURT,KOLLAM .................... (CRIME NO.319/05 OF ANCHALUMOODU POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- JEEMON @ GABRIEL,S/O.GEORGE,AGED 26, PARAPPATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,MATHILIL CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), MR.P.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT 0F KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. ANTONY,STEPHY NIVAS,KANJAVELLI, MANALIKKADA,THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. 3. STEPHY ANTONY,D/O.ANTONY OF DO..DO.. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.M.SURESH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 1196 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 7th day of April,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in S.C.1228/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Kollam. The case against the petitioner is that he committed rape on third respondent after taking her from the custody of the second respondent father. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Sessions Judge contending that entire disputes with respondents 2 and 3 were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel and filed a joint statement to the Crl.M.C.1196/2010 2 effect that entire disputes were settled amicably and therefore respondents 2 and 3 have no intention to prosecute the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Though the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008(4) KLT 417)had held that when the disputes were settled between the injured and the accused and when consequent to the settlement, chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and prosecution could be quashed invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the offences cannot be quashed invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction. An offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code cannot be termed as purely personal against the petitioner. It is an offence against the society. In such circumstances acting upon the Crl.M.C.1196/2010 3 settlement with the victim or her father the case cannot be quashed. If an offence under section 376 is to be quashed based on the settlement between the parties, it would amount to a further harassment to the victim as there will be compulsion or threat to agree for a settlement. If so it is not in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding for an offence under section 376 IPC invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence petition can only be dismissed. Learned counsel then submitted that Additional Sessions Judge may be directed to dispose the case expeditiously as it is pending from 2007 onwards. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam to dispose the case expeditiously. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006