Kerala High Court
P.Rasheed vs The Station House Officer on 9 November, 2010
Author: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4174 of 2010()
1. P.RASHEED, AGED 26 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. P.JAFAR @ JABIR,AGED 25 YEARS,
3. MUHAMMEDALI,AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
... Respondent
2. P.ABDUL KAREEM,
3. LAINAKALILLATH PATHUMBI @ FATHIMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent :SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :09/11/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 4174 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 9th day of November,2010
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused and respondents 2 and 3 the de facto complainant and the owner of the building, which was allegedly set fire by petitioners in S.C.252/2009 on the file of Sessions Court, Kasaragod taken cognizance for the offence under section 436 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure A2 final report submitted under sectiion 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution case is that due to the political enemity with respondents 2 and 3, as they belong to Indian National League petitioners who are workers of Indian Union Muslim League, in furtherance of their common intention on the early morning of 25.2.2008 at about 3.30 a.m. set fire to shop No.13/888 of Ajanoor Grama Panchayat, where Crl.M.C.4174/2010 2 second respondent is conducting a shop in sale of dinner set in the building belonging to the third respondent and thereby caused a loss of about Rs.1.5 lakhs by setting fire to the table, tarpaulin and other articles. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were subsequently settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, respondents 2 and 3 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and therefore it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners as first petitioner is the cousin brother of the second respondent and other petitioners are their friends and in view of the settlement the case is to be quashed.
3. Third respondent in her affidavit stated that the building was rented out to the second Crl.M.C.4174/2010 3 respondent and as the disputes are settled, she has no objection for compounding the case and she has no intention to prosecute the case further.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that statement of respondents 2 and 3 recorded establish that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners.
5. Annexure A2 final report establishes that offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature, against the second respondent who is conducting the trade in that shop belonging to the third respondent. The affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 establishes that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners amicably, due to the intervention of mediators. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and the disputes are amicably settled between respondents 2 and 3, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as ultimately due to the Crl.M.C.4174/2010 4 settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution.
Petition is allowed. S.C.252/2009 on the file of Sessions Court, Kasaragod is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).NO. /06
---------------------
JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006