IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 850 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.323/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.156/2008 OF MANKARA POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2, 6 AND 9 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED SADDIQUE, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 25 YEARS, CHOOLOTH VEEDU, PALLIKURUPU, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. 2. IBRAHIM, S/O. MOHAMMED, AGED 26 YEARS, ARRONI VEEDU, PALLIKURUP, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. 3. NOUFAL, S/O. UMMAR, AGED 23 YEARS, KOLKATTIL VEEDU, PALLIKURUP, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O. SULAIMAN, AGED 33 YEARS, CHOLOOTTIL VEEDU, KUNDALASSERY, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R1 BY ADV. MR.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM). THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.850 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 11th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused 2,6 and 9 in C.C.213/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. As they were absconding remaining seven accused were tried by the learned Magistrate after splitting the case as against petitioners and re-filing it as C.C.323/2009. Those accused were acquitted. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case against the petitioners contending that entire disputes were settled amicably with the first respondent, de facto complainant, who is also the injured. 2. First respondent appeared Crmc 850/10 2 through a counsel and filed joint petition with the petitioners stating that entire disputes were amicably settled and first respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and therefore, case is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-2 judgment shows that out of ten accused, except the petitioners, the other seven accused were tried and acquitted. When those accused were tried, first respondent the injured who is the de facto complainant did not support the prosecution case. So also his wife who was examined as PW2. The joint statement filed by petitioners with first respondent establishes that there has been an amicable settlement of all the Crmc 850/10 3 disputes. Consequent to the settlement, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution, even if petitioners are to be tried, especially when remaining seven co-accused were already acquitted. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.323/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.