IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1413 of 2011() ------------------------- CRA.85/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.478/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. SANESSH, S/O.RAMESHAN,CHITRAVELI VEEDU, KALARCODE, SANATHANAPURAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA, 2. SATHEESH, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, KAKKANANTTUVELI VEEDU, KAITHAVANA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. MEJO,S/O. JOSEPH, THEVELAKKATTU VEEDU, SANATHANAPURAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. BIJI JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH KUNJU, PALLATHU JOBI GARDENS, PAZHAVEEDU P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 688 537. 3. JOSEPH KUNJU, S/O.VARGHESE, -DO-, PIN - 688 537. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.M,OHAMMED ANZAR R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJENDRA PRASAD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1413 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.71 of 2005 of Alappuzha South Police Station, C.C.No.478 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha and Crl.Appeal Nos.85 of 2009 and 95 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-II), Alappuzha. Petitioners faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b) 506(i), 324, 323, 341 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Learned Magistrate convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC and they were sentenced. They preferred appeals as above stated. In the appeals, their conviction and sentence under Section 294(b) were set aside and in other respects conviction and sentence were confirmed. Petitioners did not file a Revision. Now petitioners have settled the matter with respondents 2 and 3, the defacto complainant and injured. Petitioners request this Court to quash proceeding against them on the strength of that settlement. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.MC No.1413/2011 2 2. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed affidavits sworn before and attested by a Notary Public. It is stated therein that they have no further grievance against petitioners. It is also stated that they have no objection in quashing the sentence imposed on petitioners by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. Learned counsel for petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has also confirmed authenticity and genuineness of affidavits sworn by respondents 2 and 3. It is seen from the affidavits that the matter is settled between parties outside the court. 3. It is true that petitioners have not challenged the common judgment in Crl.Appeal Nos.85 of 2009 and 95 of 2009 by way of a revision. This Court in an unreported decision in Raju and others v. State of Kerala and others (Crl.M.C.No.29 of 2009) and Biju Eappen v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 289) in circumstances where accused did not challenge their conviction and sentence has quashed proceeding against accused on the strength of settlement reached between parties after such conviction and sentence. There is no reason why that principle should not be applied in this case. Crl.MC No.1413/2011 3 Resultantly Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.71 of 2005 of Alappuzha South Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and judgment of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha in C.C.No.478 of 2005 and of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-II), Alappuzha in Crl.Appeal Nos.85 of 2009 and 95 of 2009 against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks