IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 856 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.217/2010 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 3: ------------------------------------------- 1. ISMAYIL, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, KUNJADATHU HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.A. SOMAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, KANDIRUTHY HOUSE, PATTAMBI ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJIT RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL NAZEER, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, PILAKKAL HOUSE, ATHIKKAVU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R2 BY ADV. MR.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA). THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.856 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 30th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in Crime No.217/2010 of Kunnamkulam police station registered for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 448 and 384 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A FIR based on the F.I statement of second respondent. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and the further proceedings contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Crmc 856/10 2 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that he is the son in law of the first petitioner and there was dispute between him and the father in law and subsequently entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary. 3. Case diary and Annexure-A, FIR show that case has been registered based on the first information statement furnished by second respondent that he was threatened by second petitioner and first petitioner along with some others that unless he compromises the Crmc 856/10 3 dispute with first petitioner his life is in danger. Affidavit filed by second respondent establishes that subsequently entire disputes with the first petitioner, his father-in-law was amicably settled. In such circumstances, as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), when the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature as against second respondent, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. Annexure-A FIR and further proceedings in Crime No.217/2010 of Kunnamkulam police station is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.