IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4714 of 2010() ----------------------- SC.235/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CP.42/2007 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER / 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ ANEESHKUMAR @ ANI, S/O. SASI, KATTUKANDATHIL VEEDU, METHALAPADAM BADAM CHODA, METHALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANTS / STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. VINILKUMAR @ THAKKUDU, S/O. VIMALAN, CHENNARA HOUSE, PARAMBIKULANGARA DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE-680 001. 3. SIJISH, S/O. BALAN, PANANGATTU HOUSE, NEAR METHALAPPADAM SOCIETY, METHALA VILLAGE-680 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4714 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was first accused in C.P.42/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungallur. As petitioner was absconding, the case against accused 2 to 5 was committed to Sessions Court. It was taken on file as S.C.235/2008. Those accused were tried by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda. By Annexure-A3 judgment dated 30/7/2010 they were acquitted. Case against the petitioner which was split up is pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungallur as L.P.60/2008. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with Crmc 4714/10 2 respondents 2 and 3 were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement and the order of acquittal against the remaining accused, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled all the disputes and they have no grievance against the petitioner and petitioner did not cause any hurt to them. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that on 24/12/2006 at about 11 p.m, the five accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, in furtherance of their common object committed rioting and Crmc 4714/10 3 attempted to cause death of respondents 2 and 3 and inflicted injuries by beating with iron rod and also destroyed the motor cycle belonging to the second respondent and thereby committed the offences under Sections 143, 147,148, 341, 324, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-A3 judgment, whereunder remaining four accused were acquitted, shows that when respondents 2 and 3 were examined, they did not support the prosecution case. It also shows that though three other eye witnesses were examined, they also did not support the prosecution case. Consequently, the remaining witnesses were given up and were not examined and the accused were acquitted. Affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3 establish that even if, they are to be examined, there is no likelihood of any evidence against the petitioner. When the Crmc 4714/10 4 offences alleged are purely personal in nature and the disputes were settled amicably with the petitioner, as is clear from the affidavits filed, as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as ultimately, even if petitioner is to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the Court. Petition is allowed. L.P.60/2008 (Crime No.899/2006 of Kodungallur Police Station) on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungallur is quashed. Crmc 4714/10 5 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.