IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3920 of 2010() ------------------------- SC.NO. 734/08 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO. 84/07OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ......................................... PETITIONER / ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- SANIL, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, SANIL BHAVANAM, PALLIPPAD P/W-12, NANGIARKULANGARA, PALLIPPAD. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT. A. SALINILAL RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, HARIPPAD POLICE STATION. 2. RAJAGOPAL, SULOCHANA BHAVAN, VETTUVENI MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINNY.A.THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3920 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 20th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in S.C.734/2008 on the file of Sessions Court, Alappuzha, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 366 A of Indian Penal Code, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge contending that petitioner has already married the daughter of second respondent, who was allegedly abducted by the petitioner and entire disputes with the second respondent, father-in-law, were settled and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through Crmc 3920/10 2 a counsel and filed a joint petition stating that petitioner and daughter of the second respondent were in love and subsequently they got married and they are now leading a happy married life and they are having a 2½ year old baby boy and second respondent is not interested in further prosecuting the petitioner and hence the case is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-I final report shows that prosecution case is that on 2/3/2007 at about 12 p.m, petitioner abducted Surya Raj, the daughter of second respondent, while she was returning after attending examination from the Higher Secondary School and thereby committed the offence. Compromise petition filed by the Crmc 3920/10 3 second respondent, along with the petitioner establish that the petitioner and Surya Raj, daughter of second respondent, were in love and they decided to live together and subsequently petitioner married her and they are now living as husband and wife and a baby boy born to them. It is also clear that second respondent the de facto complainant, father-in-law of the petitioner had already settled the dispute with the petitioner. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), when offences alleged against the petitioner is purely personal in nature and second respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and petitioner and the victim are living together as husband and wife, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the Crmc 3920/10 4 prosecution. Petition is allowed. S.C.734/2008 on the file of Sessions Court, Alappuzha is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.