Respondent Radhika filed an oral companyplaint in the Police Station at Nemom in the State of Kerala, stating that she had accompanied her husband to see a site which the latter had acquired at Punjakari.
P.C. We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
P.C. was on that basis filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam for quashing of the companyplaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neyyattinkara.
During the pendency of the criminal proceedings aforementioned, the parties appear to have amicably settled the matter among themselves.
The companyplainant gave the registration number of the motorbike to the police and sought action against the appellants who were named by her in the statement made before the Additional Police Sub Inspector attached to the Nemom Police Station.
FIR No.6/2010 was, on the basis of that statement, registered in the police station and investigation started.
She raised an alarm that brought her husband and brother rushing to the car by which time the offenders escaped towards Karumam on a motorcycle.
Upon arrival at the site, her husband and brother Rajesh went inside the plot while she waited for them near the car parked close by.
A charge sheet was, in due companyrse, filed against the appellants before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neyyattinkara, eventually numbered CC 183/2010.
An affidavit sworn by the respondent stating that the matter stood settled between the parties was also filed by the appellants before the High Court.
Criminal M.C. No.3715 of 2010 under Section 482 Cr.
Three youngsters at this stage appeared on a motorbike, one of whom snatched the purse and mobile phone from her hands while the other hit her on the cheek and hand.
The petition further stated that all disputes civil and criminal between the parties had been settled amicably and that the respondent had numbergrievance against the appellants in relation to the access to the plots in question and that the respondent had numberobjection to the criminal proceedings against the appellants being quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.
The only question that, therefore, arises for companysideration is whether the criminal proceedings in question companyld be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the settlement that the parties had arrived at.
That prayer was made primarily on the premise that appellant No.1 Shiji Pappu who also owns a parcel of land adjacent to the property purchased by the respondent Radhika, had some dispute in regard to the road leading to the two properties.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, whereby Criminal M.C. number 3715 of 2010 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings in FIR No.6/2010 alleging companymission of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 394 of the IPC, has been dismissed.
The High Court has taken the view that the offences with which the appellants stand charged, are number personal in nature so as to justify quashing the pending criminal proceedings on the basis of a companypromise arrived at between the first informant complainant and the appellants.
An altercation had in that companynection taken place between the appellants on the one hand and the husband and brother of the respondent on the other, culminating in the registration of the FIR mentioned above.
P.C. The petition further stated that the disputes between the parties being personal in nature the same companyld be taken as settled and the proceedings put to an end relying upon the decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 4 SCC 582.
