IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4319 of 2010() ------------------------------------- ( CR.337/2010 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED - A1 --------------------------------------------- MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, MATTYCKAL HOUSE, NELLIMALA P.O., KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SASIKALA S., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, MULLASSERY PATHALIL VEEDU, KADAMMANITTA MURI, NARAGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. SASIDHARAN NAIR, MULLASSERY PATHALIL VEEDU, KADAMMANITTA MURI, NARAGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4319 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 30th November, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.779/2010 of Aranmula Police Station registered on Annexure-A FIR for the offences under Sections 363 and 188 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, based on the first information statement furnished by the third respondent, father of the second respondent. Petitioner and second respondent are advocates practicing in Pathanamthitta courts. Allegation in Annexure-A FIR is that petitioner abducted second respondent and thereby committed the offences. Third respondent had filed W.P. (Crl).No.337/2010 before this court alleging that second respondent is in Crmc 4319/10 2 unlawful confinement of the petitioner. By Annexure-B judgment, writ petition was dismissed finding that second respondent is a major aged 25 years and an advocate by profession. This Court has accepted her assertion that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A FIR contending that when second respondent herself asserted before the Division Bench of this Court that she is not in the illegal confinement of the petitioner, continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court. It is also stated that he has settled all the disputes with the second respondent. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint petition Crmc 4319/10 3 with the petitioner stating that when this court in habeas corpus petition found that second respondent is not in the illegal detention or confinement of the petitioner and second respondent has no grievance against the petitioner, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that statement of the third respondent recorded shows that he has not settled the dispute and second respondent is now studying in Bangalore. 5. Allegation in Annexure-A FIR is that petitioner abducted second respondent. Crmc 4319/10 4 Based on the same allegation third respondent filed habeas corpus petition which was dismissed by Annexure-B judgment after second respondent appeared before the Division Bench and asserted that she was not in any illegal confinement or detention. Joint statement filed by the second respondent with the petitioner establishes that in the mediation, entire disputes were settled between the petitioner and second respondent and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 6. Petitioner and second respondent are lawyers, second respondent, the alleged victim of abduction has settled all the disputes with the petitioner. She has also stated that she has no grievance against the petitioner. Hence it is not in the in the interest of justice to continue the Crmc 4319/10 5 prosecution as ultimately, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Petition is allowed. Crime No.779/2010 of Aranmula Police Station is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.