IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2389 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.173/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- AUGUSTINE, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, PALAKKATTU VEETTIL, KALLOORKADU KARA, MANJALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHYLA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.DAS, VAZHATTU VEETTIL, KALLOORKADU, MANJALLOOR, PIN - 686 668. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. R2 BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.2389 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 15th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in C.C.173/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Muvattupuzha taken cognizance for the offence under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final report filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent, the mother of the minor victim was settled and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a statement Crmc 2389/10 2 jointly with the petitioner stating that disputes were settled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Though learned counsel vehemently argued that in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)), when the disputes were settled between the mother of the victim and the petitioner, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and in fact no offence under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code was committed, I cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel. It cannot be said that the offence alleged against the petitioner is purely personal in Crmc 2389/10 3 nature against the second respondent. In any case, accepting the settlement between the accused and the mother of the victim, the offence committed against the minor cannot be compounded as sought for. Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate and to seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.