IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 384 of 2010() ----------------------------------- L.P.C. NO.23/2009 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR. ................. PETITIONER/ 5TH ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- NARIYAMADATH RASHID, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 27 YEARS, P.O. MATTOOL, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE S.H.O. PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR, REPRESENTING STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. N. BABURAJ, S/O. DAMODARAN, NADAPURAM HOUSE, MADAYI AMSOM, MADATI THERU, PAYANGADI P.O. KANNUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 384 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 23rd day of February,2010 ORDER Petitioner was the fifth accused in C.C.662/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur. The prosecution case is that on 17.7.2004, 16 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object at 6.16 p.m pulled down second respondent from bus KL-13.G.12, while he was its driver, and caused hurt to him and thereby committed offences under sections 143,147,341,323, read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. As the petitioner and accused 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 were absconding, case as against them was split up and refiled as C.C.473/2007. Accused 2, 6, 7, 11, 14, and 16 were tried and by Annexure A2 Crl.M.C.384/2010 2 judgment, they were acquitted. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that the disputes were settled with the second respondent de facto complainant who is the sole injured in this case. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed an affidavit stating that he is now employed in Dubai and the case has been settled at the intervention of mediators and in such circumstances he has no objection for quashing the case as against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Under Annexure A2 judgment accused 2, 6, 7, 11, 14 and 16 were acquitted finding that second respondent who was examined as PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution and so also the two eye witnesses. Though the affidavit filed by the second respondent only shows that the case is settled with the petitioner, Annexure A3 copy of Crl.M.C.384/2010 3 the deposition of the second respondent in C.C.662/2004, when he was examined as PW1 establishes that he did not identify the culprits. As the eye witnesses also turned hostile, prosecution did not examine the other witnesses. In such circumstances, when the affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that there was a settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as against the accused. As there is no possibility of a successful prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. L.P.23/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006