IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 738 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------ (C.C. NO. 790/2009 OF JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD IN CRIME NO.287/2009 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION) ............... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- RADHA RAMANAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE SANKU MASTER, PALLIKADAVIL KOCHIKARAN HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR P.O, ENGANDIYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SAJI, S/O.GANGADHARAN, KOVIL THEKKEVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SAKTHIDHARAN, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, BELAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPALLY POLICE STATION, . 4. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A.C.MOHANAKRISHNAN, R3 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.738 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd March 2010 O R D E R Petition is filed by the de facto complainant in C.C.790/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad to quash the cognizance taken against accused 1 and 2 contending that entire disputes were settled amicably. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is the de facto complainant who filed the petition consequent to the settlement of the disputes and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Crmc 738/10 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as is clear from Annexure-II final report taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, respondents 1 and 2 trespassed into the house belonging to CW3 Jayanthi where CW1 the petitioner and CW2 Samarabhai were residing and they wrongfully restrained the petitioner and caused hurt and also scolded Cws.2 and 3 and there is no settlement of the disputes with Cws.2 and 3. 5. When offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code is allegedly committed as against Cws.2 and 3 also, it is not possible to quash the proceedings as sought for by the petitioner, without establishing that there was a settlement of the dispute with CW3 also. Hence petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.