IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4281 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- [LPC.NO.34/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR, CR.NO.47/2006 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- PRAJIL, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 28 YEARS, CHUNDA, MOTTAMMAL P.O., KANNAPURAM AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.P.YESODHA, D/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 55 YEARS, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHUNDA, MOTTAMMAL P.O., KANNAPURAM AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 331. 3. C.DEEPA, W/O.AJEENDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHUNDA, MOTTAMMAL P.O., KANNAPURAM AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 331. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.J.ABHILASH. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.4281 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. O R D E R Petitioners was the third accused in C.P.No.33 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kannur. As petitioner was absconding, case against him was split up and remaining six accused were committed to Sessions Court. It was taken on file as S.C.No.410 of 2007. They were tried by Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. By judgment dated 30.09.2010, those accused, except fifth accused O.Sabheesh, who absconded, were acquitted. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate as L.P.C.No.34 of 2009 against the petitioner contending that in view of the order of acquittal against the co-accused and settlement with respondents 2, 3 the de facto complainants, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Respondents two and three appeared through a counsel and filed a compounding petition along with the petitioner stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent settlement they may be permitted to compound the offences. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents Crl.M.C No.4281 OF 2010 2 two and three and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Though petitioner along with respondents two and three filed a petition to compound the offences, as all offences are not compoundable, permission cannot be granted to compound the offences. 5. Prosecution case as seen from Annexure-2 final report is that on 3.10.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of trespassing into the house of the second respondent and in furtherance of the common intention armed with deadly weapons committed rioting and trespassed into the residential house of respondents two and three and set fire to the household articles and caused a loss of Rs.5.5 lakhs and also intimidated respondents two and three and thereby committed the offences. Case against the petitioner was split up and the case against remaining six accused was committed. It was taken on file and tried by Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery. Case against petitioner is pending as L.P.C.No.34 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kannur. After recording the evidence, learned Sessions Judge has already acquitted the accused 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. Case as against the petitioner accused Crl.M.C No.4281 OF 2010 3 No.5 was split up by the Sessions Court. As a result of acquittal of five accused, now the case against only the two absconding accused remains. It is clear from the compounding petition that respondents two and three has already settled the disputes with the petitioner. Hence it is clear that even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. In such circumstances as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC), when the disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and the trial would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Therefore it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. L.P.C.No.34 of 2009 Judicial First class Magistrate Court-1, Kannur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. mns