IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 182 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.523/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT(VICTIM) AND ACCUSED NO.3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. R. RASHEED AHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, POTTAYIL HOUSE, MELATHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NIYAZ AHMED B., S/O.SALAM. T., BISHARATH, KARAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 010. BY ADV. MR.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/OTHER ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.K. SAKEER, S/O.KUNHIKOYATTY, FAZILA NIVAS, KARUVANTHIRUTHY, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 3. K.M. ABDUL AARIF, S/O.KUNHAMMED K.A., ERIYAN HOUSE, KOTTALA P.O., KASARAGOD. 4. ARUN MENON, S/O.GOVINDAN, DEW DROPS, ARAVANKADU P.O., TAMIL NADU. 5. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.MUHAMMED YAKOOB, AKKARAKADAVIL, FEROKE COLLEGE, CALICUT. 6. SAJIN JOSE, S/O.PHILIP JOSEPH, KUNNEL HOUSE, MUNDAKKAYAM, NEW MARKET, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 182 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of January,2010 ORDER First petitioner is the de facto complainant and the second petitioner the original accused NO.5 in C.C.523/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- V, Kozhikode. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the second petitioner contending that entire disputes were settled with the first petitioner, de facto complainant and therefore it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitioners contended that though original accused 1, 4,6 to 9 and 16 were tried by the learned Magistrate, after splitting up and refiling the case as against the remaining accused as C.C.121/2004, those accused were Crl.M.C.182/2010 2 acquitted by Annexure I judgment and later after splitting up the case as against accused 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 and 9 as C.C.579/2008, the remaining accused were tried in C.C.121/2004 and by Annexure 2 judgment those accused were also acquitted. It is contended that even if the case is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a conviction and when there is a settlement of the disputes with first petitioner it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Annexure 2 and 3 judgments with Annexure 3 final report submitted before the learned Magistrate establish that the prosecution case is that on 7.11.1997, at about 10 a.m, 16 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of restraining the first petitioner and causing hurt and grievous hurt to him and in furtherance of the common object all the accused being members of the unlawful assembly wrongly restrained first petitioner and thereafter Crl.M.C.182/2010 3 beat him with their hands and also hit with stones and caused grievous hurt and thereby committed offences under sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, and 326 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure I judgment shows that original accused 1, 4,6 to 9,and 16 were acquitted Annexure 2 judgment shows that subsequently after the trial of the split up case, accused 4, 6 and 8 in C.C.121/2004 were also acquitted. The petition filed by the first petitioner along with the original fifth accused and the affidavit filed by the first petitioner establishes that the offences alleged against the accused are purely personal in nature as against the first petitioner and the first respondent settled all the disputes with the second petitioner. As held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) when there has been settlement of all the disputes with the injured and consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a conviction, especially Crl.M.C.182/2010 4 when the co-accused after recording the evidence were already acquitted, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.579/2008 as against the second petitioner the original fifth accused in C.C.523/2000 who is the third accused in C.C.121/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006