IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1049 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- [SC.NO.2587/2006 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SAMEER, S/O.HABEEBULLAH, SAFEER MANZIL, MALAMELPARAMBU, MALAMELPARAMBU DESOM, ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.SHAJIN S.HAMEED. RESPONDENTS/CW1: ------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ (CW1), VETTATTUVILAKOM, KARIKAKOM, KANIYAPURAM DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B. PRAMOD, R2 BY ADV. MR.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1049 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 7th day of April,2010 ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in S.C.2587/2006 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court being tried for the offences under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Annexure A final report shows that prosecution case is that due to the dispute with regard to the boundary of the properties of the petitioner and the wife of the second respondent, on 29.5.2001 at about 11.30 p.m petitioner threw fire works on the window glass of the bed room of the second respondent, where he was sleeping with his wife, and thereby committed the offences under sections 3 and 5 of Explosives Act. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Crl.M.C.1049/2010 2 Procedure to quash the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue with the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes with the petitioner were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, he has no grievance against the petitioner and consequently it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and public prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure A final report establishes that the offences alleged against the petitioner are purely personal in nature. The only allegation is that he had thrown fireworks on the window of the bed room, where second respondent was sleeping Crl.M.C.1049/2010 3 with his wife and the incident occurred consequent to the disputes with regard to the boundaries of the properties of the petitioner and the wife of the second respondent. The affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that entire disputes were settled amicably. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.2587/2006 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Attingal is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006