IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3631 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.171/2008 OF CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CR. NO.486/2008 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ......... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- SABAREENATH, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 23 YEARS, SABARI NIVAS, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED/STATE: ------------------------------------------------ - - 1. SHYAM ANTONY, T.C.34/799, VALIATHOPPU, SHANGHUMUKHOM, PETTA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC. NO.3721 OF 2010 & 3745 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3631, 3721 & 3745 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated 28th September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the de facto complainant in Crime Nos.171/2008, 172/2008 and 173/2008 of CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram respectively filed Crl.M.C.3631/2010, 3745/2010 and 3721/2010 to quash the FIR and the further proceedings contending that entire disputes with some of the accused were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that entire Crmc 3631, 3721 & 3745/10 2 allegations raised against the respondents/accused show that the offences alleged against them are purely personal in nature against the petitioner and when the petitioner himself settled the disputes with those accused and approached this Court to quash the proceedings, as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as per the FIR, the offences alleged against the accused are not purely personal in nature and on investigation, it is revealed that it was not only the petitioner but some others are also abducted and in such circumstances, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Crmc 3631, 3721 & 3745/10 3 5. Considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the offences alleged are not purely personal in nature. More over, the petitioner alone is not the victim and based on the settlement of the disputes with the petitioner alone, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petitions are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.