IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1050 of 2009() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.224/08 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SIBY MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, NELLIYANICKAL, RESIDING AT THE HOUSE OF MOOLEPPARAMBIL THOMACHAN, VILLANI, ANAKKALLU P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. ABRAHAM MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, NELLIYANICKAL HOUSE, PAZHAYIDOM, NEAR CAUSEWAY, MANIMALA. 3. NIZAMUDDEEN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM JUNCTION, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. MR.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARIAKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.LATE MATHAI, NELLIYANICKAL HOUSE, PALAPRA, VENGATHANAM P.O. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION, PONKUNNAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== CRL.M.C. No1050 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of March 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.224 of 2008 of Ponkunnam Police Station. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that the allegation is that the property belonging to the mother and her deceased son Biji Mathew was dealt with by playing impersonation and that 30 cents of land out of the total 55 cents was assigned impersonating this people and therefore they have committed offences alleged in the FIR. The relationship between the parties is that of mother and children and some strangers. A civil litigation was also filed as O.S.No.250/2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally. The mother instituted the suit to declare that document No.3575 of 2006 and the mortgage deed No.5148 of 2006 are not binding on the plaintiffs and also for partition of the property, etc. Plaintiffs and defendants being the mother, children and others, wisdom prevailed on them and ultimately they entered into a compromise whereby they agreed to declare that Document No.3575/2006 is not binding on the plaint schedule property. Similarly they CRL MC 1050/2009 -:2:- also agreed that the entire mortgage debt has been wiped off and so the mortgage deed also will have no significance. Thereafter there was a request for division of the shares and further direction for sale etc. The compromise was accepted by the court and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. So, the parties have put up a quietus to the litigation by resolving the dispute among themselves. Thereafter the mother, who is the de facto complainant had filed a petition for compounding before this Court which would indicate that all the matters pending between the mother and children had been settled and the mother has no grievance to ventilate against the children. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Prosecutor and applying the dictum laid down in many cases now a situation has arisen where it is stated that while invoking power under Section 482 Crl.P.C., the court is duty bound to look into the prospect of the litigation and what will be the result if it is allowed to continue. When the dispute is of a personal nature and it is also of a civil nature and when the civil matter is settled, the court can apply its mind to find out whether a prosecution is necessary or not. Being a family dispute and when the members of the family had amicably settled the matter that also requires consideration in the light of the enunciated principle. CRL MC 1050/2009 -:3:- 3. Now turning to the facts of the present case. The mother and children had sorted out their differences and decided to settle all the disputes among themselves and it has ended in a decree by a competent civil court. So, the parties have put a finality to the dispute and therefore it is not correct to direct them to face the prosecution which will spoil the harmonious atmosphere which they have created at the time of settlement. So, I invoke my power under Section 482 Crl.P.C. and allow the Crl.M.C. and quash all further proceedings in Crime No.224/2008 of Ponkunnam Police Station. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-