IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2069 of 2009() ------------------------- CP.21/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... (CRIME NO.138/09 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSHIN JOY, ARYICHALIL HOUSE, KAKOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. SIJO V.M. VAZHAKALAYIL, AYYAPPANKOVIL, MATTUKATTA, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. MR.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. 2. GIKKU JACOB KULATHAMACKAL HOUSE, POOTHAKUZHY P.O. PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.V. PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. MR. R. KRISHNAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.2069 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 20th day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.P.21/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom. Second respondent is the de facto complainant. The case against the petitioners is that on 12.4.2009 for the reason that second respondent who was driving Maruti Car, did not give side to the bus driven by the first petitioner, with second petitioner Conductor, knowing that the act would cause death, first petitioner hit the bus on the back side of the car and thereby caused damages to the vehicle and hence committed offences under section 308 and 294(b) read with section 34 of Indian Penal code. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that the dispute with the second respondent was amicably settled and in such circumstance as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings and therefore it is to be quashed. Crl.M.C.2069/2009 2 2. Along with the petition an affidavit of the second respondent is also filed to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the petitioners and he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Though offences alleged against the petitioners is inclusive of the offence under section 308 read with section 34 of Indian Penal code, it is admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no injury whatsoever was caused to the second respondent and only damages were caused to the vehicle. In such circumstance, when the dispute with the second respondent is amicably settled by the petitioners and second respondent filed an affidavit stating that the dispute was settled, in the light of the settlement there is no chance of a successful prosecution. Hence it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case. Petition is allowed. C.P.21/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom as against the petitioners is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006