IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4993 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.182/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- PRAJEESH PANOLI, S/O.PRABHAKARAN PANOLI, PRABHATHAM VEEDU, VALIYANNUR VILLAGE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MEETTA MADAHAV NAYAK, D/O.REETTA MADHAV NAYAK, T.C.14/677, MANMITHIL VEEDU, B.C.N.R.A.-A-17, CHETTIKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695018. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMED ANZARI FOR R1 ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4993 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C. No.182 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala for offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). The charge is that on 06.12. 2009 at about 3 a.m. while respondent No.2 (defacto complainant) was travelling in B-1 coach of Mangalapuram-Thiruvananthapuram, Maveli Express petitioner who was travelling in the same coach outraged modesty of respondent No.2. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the dispute between them and in the circumstances, continuance of the proceedings is only a waste of time and energy affecting the harmonious relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has appeared through counsel and has sworn an affidavit dated November 15, 2010 wherein it is stated that the matter is amicably settled between herself and petitioner and hence, she does not intend to continue the prosecution. It is also stated that in order to honour harmonious settlement reached between herself and petitioner it is necessary to quash Annexure-A, final report and the proceedings initiated which is pending in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala as C.C.No.182 of 2010. Crl.M.C.No.4993/2010 2 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 submit that in the circumstances stated, continuance of the proceedings is only a waste of time and energy. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 is a last year student of MBBS course and that to avoid embarrassment to all, settlement reached between petitioner and respondent No.2 may be honoured. Leaned counsel contends that as on the date of the alleged incident, offence under Section 354 of the Code was compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. It is seen from the materials placed before me that petitioner and respondent No.2 have settled the dispute. Petitioner seriously challenges identity of the alleged culprit. Evidence regarding the alleged identity and incident have to come from respondent No.2. She asserts in her affidavit that she has settled the matter with petitioner and that she does not intend to proceed with the matter further. In such circumstances I am of the view that the prosecution will not yield the expected result and that it would only be a waste of time and energy. Having regard to these circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Crl.M.C.No.4993/2010 3 Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-A, final report in Crime No.10 of 2009 of the Railway Police Station and all proceedings taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala in C.C.No.182 of 2010 will stand quashed. Crl.M.A.No.8126 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks