IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 662 of 2011() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.75/2011 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION,KASARGOD) .......... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED NOUSHAD, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. LATE SAINUDHEEN, NEAR HOUSING BOARD COLONY, INDIRA NAGAR, POST CHENGALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL HAMEED.U., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL, UKKAMBATTY HOUSE, PANALAM, CHEROOR POST, KASASRGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.LISHA.M.G. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHAPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.662 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.75 of 2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod. Case was registered against him and three other identifiable persons for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Prosecution case is that on 12.02.2011 at about 12 O' clock petitioner and three other identifiable persons assaulted respondent No.1/defacto complainant with an iron rod and a punch and criminally intimidated him with death. Petitioner claims that he has settled the case with respondent No.1 and on the strength of that settlement seeks to quash proceeding against him. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has confirmed the settlement and authenticity of Annnexure-2, affidavit of respondent No.1. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted after getting instruction that the matter is settled between the parties and that respondent No.1 had told the Investigating Officer that since the matter is settled he does not intend to proceed with the case further. Crl.MC No.662/2011 2 3. Offence punishable under Section 326 of the Code is involved since in the alleged incident respondent No.1 lost his tooth. The offence is personal to and between petitioner, other identifiable persons and respondent No.1. It is seen that the matter is settled between the parties. Going by the signed statement of respondent No.1 given to the Investigating Officer a copy of which learned Public Prosecutor has given me for perusal it is revealed that respondent No.1 has settled the case with the petitioner and he does not want to proceed with it. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 that petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.1. In the circumstances it is not necessary to proceed with the case. Hence I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1, FIR in Crime No.75 of 2011 Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod and all proceedings pursuant thereto against petitioners and other identifiable accused are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks