IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4518 of 2010() ------------------------------------- C.C.210/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .......................... PETITIONERS/A2 & A3 --------------------------------- 1. KIRAN @ PALLINADA KANNAN, (A2), S/O.ARAVINDAN, SASI BHAVAN, PALLINADA, NEAR MOSQUE, ATTIPARA DESOM, ATTIPRA VILLAGE. 2. SHIVAPRASAD @ UNNI, S/O.SAHADEVAN, (A3) THRIKKAKARAPURA VEEDU, NEAR FCI, KAMUKARA MURI, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTOM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW1: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. LALLU GOPALAN, S/O.GOPALAN, (CW1) HOUSE NO.9, PULLATTUKARI LAKSHAM VEEDU, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTOM.P.O, PIN-695 104. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4518 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners were accused 2 and 3 in C.C.No. 43/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final report. As petitioners were absconding, case against them was split up and refiled as C.C.No.210/2008 and first accused was tried. By judgment dated 13.6.2008, first accused was acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that first accused was already acquitted and entire disputes with the second respondent, the defacto complainant and the injured were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. CRMC 4578/10 2 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioners amicably and and they are now friends and consequent to the settlement, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that due to previous enmity, on 12.2.2003 at about 5.45 p.m., in furtherance of their common intention, petitioners, along with the first accused, armed with deadly weapons like sword and wooden bars, wrongfully restrained second respondent and caused hurt by hitting with wooden bars and criminally intimidated him with the sword and thereby committed the offences. 5. Annexure-A final report shows that offences alleged against the petitioner are purely personal CRMC 4578/10 3 in nature against the second respondent. Affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioner. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when the offences alleged against the petitioner are purely personal in nature and all the disputes were settled amicably between the petitioner and second respondent and consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.210/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court- III, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed. 9th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv