IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1469 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CC.1442/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD. CRIME NO.641/2007 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 IN C.C.1442/09 ------------------------------------------------------------------- SURESH BABU, S/O.CHANDRAN, RAMY HOUSE, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PRAJEESH, S/O.SWAMY, KUNNATH HOUSE, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, ERATTUPUZHA DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SANOJ, S/O.BABURAJ, PUVATHAMKANDIL VEETIL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, ERATTUPUZHA DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.APPU, VELUTHAVEETIL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, ERATTUPUZHA DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 1469 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 12th day of November,2010 ORDER Petitioner was the first accused in C.C.1360/2007 taken cognizance for the offence under sections 143, 147, 448, 341, 323 and 427 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioner and sixth accused absconded, case against them was split up and refiled as C.C.1442/2009. The remaining accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 were tried. After trial they were acquitted. First accused filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against him contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Respondents 1 to 3 are the de facto complainants and the injured. They Crl.M.C.1469/2010 2 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled entire disputes with the petitioner and as the case against accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 were settled they were acquitted in C.C.1360/2007. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that an offence under section 427 and 448 are also involved and the owner of the building is CW4, Srijith who was not impleaded in the petition and there is no material to show that there was settlement with the said Srijith and therefore the offence under section 427 and 448 of Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed. 4. There is no material to prove that there was settlement of the disputes with the owner of the building. Hence the offences under section 427 and 448 of Indian Penal code cannot be quashed. The affidavits filed by respondents 1 to 3 Crl.M.C.1469/2010 3 establish that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioner. The affidavit also establishes that case as against accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 was already tried and they were acquitted. In such circumstances as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) prosecution of the petitioner for the other offences, except the offence under section 427 and 448 of Indian Penal Code are to be quashed. Petition is allowed in part. The cognizance taken against the petitioner and the further proceedings in C.C.1360/2007 for the offences under sections 143, 147, 341 and 323 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code is quashed. The learned Magistrate can proceed against the petitioner for the offences under section 427 and 448 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006