IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 559 of 2010 -------------------------------- (S.C. NO.1355/09 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEDUMANGAD, CRIME NO.109/2004 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION) ........... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- AJI @ AJITH, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, CHARUVILA KUNNIL PURATHU VEEDU, KANCHINADA, PANGODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.DINESH.M. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJI, D/O. PRASANNA, KANCHINADU KUNNIN PURATHU JIJU VILASOM, KANCHINADA, PANGODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI, R2 BY ADV.MR.JOBI JOSE KONDODY. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 559 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of February,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in S.C.1355/2009 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad being tried for the offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the prosecutrix. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case pending before the Assistant Sessions Court contending that the entire disputes with the second respondent prosecutrix is settled and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitioner has also produced a petition signed by the second respondent, stating that she has settled the disputes with the petitioner and she was subsequently married and is leading a Crl.M.C.559/2010 2 happy marital life. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The fact that the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) held that even non compoundable offences can be quashed exercising the powers under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, does not mean that all cognizable offences have to be quashed accepting the settlement of the parties. An offence under section 376 IPC cannot be termed as purely personal in nature, as it is an offence against the Society. In such circumstances, the case cannot be quashed as sought for by the petitioner. It may be that if the prosecutrix turns hostile to the prosecution and there is no other evidence to establish the commission of rape, Assistant Sessions Judge may be compelled to acquit the petitioner on evidence. That is not a ground to quash the proceedings as Crl.M.C.559/2010 3 sought for. Learned counsel then submitted that Assistant Sessions Judge may be directed to expedite the trial. Petition is dismissed. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nedumangad is directed to expedite the trial of S.C.1355/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006