IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4032 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- (S.C. NO.42/1996 OF THE I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) ................ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU RAMESH @ KOCHANIYAN, S/O.G.RAMESAN, RAJADHANI BUILDINGS, KIZHAKKEKOTTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. INDIRA RAMESH, W/O. G. RAMESAN, RAJADHANI BUILDINGS, KIZHAKKEKOTTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SUNILKUMAR, S/O.GANGADHARAN, PARACHIRA VEEDU, JAGATHY, THYCAUD WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. PREMSANKAR, S/O.GOVINDAN, KARATTUPARAMBIL, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO.4039/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ---------------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NOs.4032 & 4039 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated 12th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners 1 to 3 in Crl.M.C.4032/2010 are the accused and fourth petitioner, the de facto complainant in S.C.42/1996 on the file of First Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners 1 and 3 in Crl.M.C.4032/2010 are petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.M.C.4039/2010. They are the accused in S.C.72/1991 pending before the same Court. Third petitioner therein is the de facto complainant. S.C.42/1996 was taken cognizance for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 complaint filed by fourth petitioner in Crl.M.C.4032/2010. Crmc 4032 & 4039/10 2 Under Annexure-A2 order learned Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge has framed charge for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. S.C.72/1991 was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 114 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 132(a) read with Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act on Annexure-A1 final report submitted by the police after investigation. Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that all the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and entire disputes were settled between the de facto complainant and the respective accused and in the light of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Fourth Crmc 4032 & 4039/10 3 petitioner in Crl.M.C.4032/2010 is the de facto complainant and brother-in-law of the first petitioner and second petitioner is the mother-in-law of the fourth petitioner/de facto complainant. Petitions are filed jointly by the de facto complainant and the accused, contending that as entire disputes were settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that statement of the de fcto complainant recorded establishes that entire disputes were subsequently settled. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and going through the final report as well as the private complaint, which were taken Crmc 4032 & 4039/10 4 cognizance, it is clear that offences alleged against petitioners 1 to 3 in Crl.M.C.4032/2010 and petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.M.C.4039/2010 are purely personal in nature against the fourth petitioner in Crl.M.C.4032/2010 who is the third petitioner in Crl.M.C.4039/2010. 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 accused are purely personal in nature against the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant has settled all the disputes with the accused and they together approached this Court to quash the proceedings, contending that it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution the trial would only be a futile exercise. Taking into consideration Crmc 4032 & 4039/10 5 the relationship between the parties and the need to maintain the cordiality, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitions are allowed. S.C.42/1996 and S.C.72/1991 on the file of First Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.