IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2156 of 2009() ------------------------- SC.312/2007 of II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... (CRIME NO.121/04 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------------- SURESH BABU R.C., S/O CHANDRAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RAMI HOUSE, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASHRAF, S/O MUHAMMADALI, AGED 30 YEARS, PAZHAYAKATH HOUSE, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.T.SHYAM KUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2156 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in S.C.No. 312/2007 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur. Prosecution case is that on 20.3.2004 at about 4.45 p.m. petitioner hit first respondent/defacto complainant, the injured, with an iron pipe with the intention to cause his death and caused fracture and thereby committed offences under Sections 341, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed to quash the case contending that subsequently there was a settlement of the disputes with the first respondent and in the light of the settlement, first respondent has no grievance against the petitioner and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 2. An affidavit of the first respondent was also filed stating that there was an amicable CRMC 2156/09 2 settlement of the dispute and he has no grievance against the petitioner and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19(SC)) and in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417(SC)), submitted that in the light of the settlement, as the offences alleged are all of personal nature as against the petitioner and there is no chance of a successful conviction, even if the petitioner is to be tried, the case is to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also submitted that as the matter is settled, first respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that there was a settlement CRMC 2156/09 3 of the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent. 5. Though an offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is also alleged, the injury sustained by the first respondent, as is clear from the wound certificate made available, is only fracture of both ulna. In the nature of the prosecution case, the offences alleged against the petitioner are of personal nature. As there is an amicable settlement of the dispute with the first respondent, even if the petitioner is to be tried, there is no chance of a successful conviction. It would cause only unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. S.C.No.312/2007 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur as against the petitioner is quashed. 6th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv