IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4663 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CP.78/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA. CRIME NO.271/2009 OF ARYANCODE POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2 --------------------------------------------------- 1. ANEESHMON @ VINOD, S/O.CHELLAN, "ANEESH BHAVAN", MEKKONAM, PAZHAMAL DESOM, PERUMKIDAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SIMON, AGED 44 YEARS, THEKKEKARA BUNGLOW, PAZAHAMALA, MEKKONAM, PAZHAMAL DESOM, PERUMKIDAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PAUL YESUDAS, S/O.THAMSON NADAR, AGED 52 YEARS, KARUNYA VILAS, PAZHINJIKUZHI, ANCODE, PERUMKIDAVILA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4663 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and first respondent, the de facto complainant in C.P.78/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Neyyattinkara, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 366 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final report. Prosecution case is that in furtherance of their common intention, petitioners kidnapped Amala Jyothi, daughter of the first respondent in Tata Sumo car No.KL-01-N-8577 on 29/8/2009 at about 4.30 a.m and wrongfully restrained her at Thankamani of Idukki district and thereby committed the offence. Crmc 4663/10 2 Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that petitioners did not kidnap the daughter of first respondent and in fact families of the first respondent and first petitioner are close relatives and second petitioner is the uncle of the first petitioner and first petitioner was engaged with Amala Jyothi, daughter of first respondent for many years. On 22/9/2009, on filing W.P.(Crl) 375/2009 Amala Jyothi was produced before the Court and from the Court she expressed her desire to go along with the first petitioner and also that she was not kidnapped. She was directed to be kept in Santhinikethan Hostel and later on 12/10/2009, evidenced by Annexure- B order, this Court permitted her to go along with the first petitioner and as directed in Annexure-B order first petitioner married Amala Crmc 4663/10 3 Jyothi and marriage was solemnised on 9/11/2010 and thereafter they are living as husband and wife and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, especially when subject matter of the disputes were settled with the first respondent. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that as his daughter Amala Jyothi was found missing, he filed a complaint before Aryancode police station on 29/8/2009 disclosing that his daughter is missing and police registered crime No.271/2009 and as directed by this Court in W.P.(Crl).375/2009, first petitioner married Amala Jyothi and they are living as husband and wife and in view of the said development, he is not interested to continue the prosecution. It is also contended that for better future of his Crmc 4663/10 4 daughter and families of both first petitioner and first respondent, it is necessary to terminate the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-B judgment in W.P.(Crl) 375/2009 establishes that as Annexure-C petition filed by first respondent, Amala Jyothi was produced before the Court and though she disclosed that she was not kidnapped and she wants to go along with the first petitioner and she refused to go with the parents, this Court sent her to Santhiniketan Hostel. Subsequently, when she was produced, first respondent and wife submitted that they have no objection for permitting Amala Jyothi to be married by the first petitioner as and when she attains majority on 26/8/2010. It was Crmc 4663/10 5 undertaken that first petitioner would marry the daughter of first respondent. Affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that as undertaken before the Court, first petitioner has already married the daughter of first respondent. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and endanger the cordial relationship between the families. Petition is allowed. C.P.78/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Neyyattinkara is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.