IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1685 of 2011() ---------------------------------- AGAINST CRIME NO. 173/2011 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT .............................. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1,2 &3: --------------------------------------------------- 1. ANU RAJ, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, PUTHENPIRAYIL, THEPPUPARA P.O., EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK. 2. SREERAJ, AGED 19 YEARS, PALAMITTATHU HOUSE, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 3. KISHORE @ ANANTHU, AGED 17 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER, KRISHNANKUTTY ACHARI, CHITRALAYAM, PARAKODE, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANTH S., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, PRASANTHI BHAVAN, ARUKALICKAL EAST MURI, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLI PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA RI BY ADV. SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1685 of 2011() ANNEXURE ANNEXURE AI : COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 173/11 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE AII : AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE smt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1685 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of June 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.173 of 2011 of Adoor Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.326 and 308 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). 2. Case is that in connection with a dispute that arose regarding conduct of 'Ganamela' in a temple petitioners, on 11.3.2011 at about 5 PM attacked first respondent with iron rod and attempted to cause his death. Petitioners request to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement. 3. Annexure AII affidavit sworn by the first respondent and attested by a Notary Public states that the first respondent has settled the matter with petitioners and that he has no objection to quash proceeding against Crl.M.C. No.1685 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioners in Crime No.173 of 2011 referred above. 4. Counsel on both sides confirmed the settlement. Counsel for first respondent also confirmed genuineness and authenticity of the affidavit sworn by the first respondent. It is submitted that petitioners were students at the relevant time and that 3rd petitioner had not completed 18 years on the date of occurrence. Learned Public Prosecutor, on getting instruction has submitted that the dispute is settled between parties and that the 3rd petitioner had not completed 18 years at the relevant time. 5. It is not shown that petitioners are involved in any other case. As learned counsel submitted, petitioners were students at the relevant time and aged around 18 years. It is also seen that the incident occurred due to the sudden enemity (as mentioned in the FIR) arising out of a dispute regarding conduct of Ganamela in a temple. In the above circumstance, I am inclined to accept the settlement reached between the parties. In the light of that settlement Crl.M.C. No.1685 of 2011 -: 3 :- there is no possibility of a successful culmination for the prosecution case. Resultantly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Proceeding in Crime No.173 of 2011 of Adoor Police Station against petitioners is quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt