IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4486 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.91/2009 OF MEDICAL COLLECGE POLICE STATION. C.C. NO.389/2009 OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ............. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4 -------------------------------------------------- 1. DILEEP, S/O.RAVI, T.C.14/1419, VIGNESWARA NAGAR, VAZHUTHACAUD, PALAYAM, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRADEEP, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, CHOOLAKULATHIL VEEDU, T.C.16/699, JAGATHI, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KUNJUMON, ATTARIKATHU VEEDU, JRA 117 TC 16/987, NEAR JAGATHI, PALAYAM, JAGATHI WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE. 4. VINOD, S/O.VIJAYAN, VAYALANIKATHIYA VEEDU, T.C.14/74, SOUTH OF HEERA APARTMENT, C.S.ROAD, JAGATHI WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. NAYAB, S/O.CRUSIN SAIT, 'ROSHAN', T.C.13/1817, AVITTOM ROAD, KUMARAPURAM GOWREESHAPATTOM WARD, PATTOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4486 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 389/2009 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 451 and 394 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a compromise petition with the petitioners stating that he has settled entire disputes amicably. CRMC 4486/10 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Argument of the learned counsel is that when entire disputes with the second respondent are settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19). 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first petitioner is involved in twenty criminal cases and second petitioner is involved in six cases and all the petitioners are known criminals and they were in jail under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act for six months and settlement has been procured by threatening the second respondent. 6. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, I do not find that offences alleged against the CRMC 4486/10 3 petitioners are purely personal in nature so as to quash the proceedings invoking the principles laid down in Madan Mohan Abbot's case (supra), as sought for. When the offences alleged are not purely personal in nature, it is not in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings as sought for. Petition is dismissed. 8th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv