IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4184 of 2010() ------------------------------------ LP.310/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR CRIME NO. 131/2004 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SALIM, S/O.MEERA SAHIB, KALLUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ADICHANELLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): INJURED AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJU PAUL, S/O.PAUL, KODIVILA VEEDU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLIMON VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. PAUL, S/O.HABEL, KODIVILA VEEDU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLIMON VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SHEEJA, D/O.PAUL, KODIVILA VEEDU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLIMON VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. BABU PAUL, S/O.PAUL, KODIVILA VEEDU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLIMON VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKUMAR (PANAMBIL) R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4184 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the fourth accused in C.P.No. 33/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Paravoor. As second accused and petitioner were absconding, the case against them was re-filed as C.P.No.11/2008. Case against accused 1 and 3 was committed and taken on file by Sessions Court-II, Kollam as S.C.No.143/2008. By Annexure-D judgment, those accused were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case pending against the petitioner before the committal court contending that in view of the order of acquittal against accused 1 and 3 and also in view of settlement of all the disputes between petitioner and respondents 1 to 4, the defacto complainant and the injured, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have CRMC 4184/10 2 settled all the disputes with the petitioner and consequent to the settlement, they have no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents 1 to 4 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that due to previous enmity against respondents 1 and 2, the four accused, in furtherance of the common intention, on 15.4.2004 at about 7.30 p.m., trespassed in to the courtyard of the dwelling house of the first respondent at Kodivilaveedu and inflicted a blow on the head of the first respondent and as he warded of, it landed on the left side of his head and the accused caused hurt to respondents 2 to 4 also and thereby committed offences under Sections 447, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation of commission of an offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is only for the reason that if first respondent has not evaded the blow when he was hit on the head, death would have been caused. Annexure-D judgment establishes that when accused 1 and 3 were tried by the learned CRMC 4184/10 3 Sessions Judge, all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution and consequently, there was no evidence in support of the prosecution case. Affidavits filed by respondents 1 to 4 establish that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioner and consequent to the settlement even if petitioner is to be tried, no evidence will be adduced against him. Therefore, if petitioner is directed to be tried, it would serve no purpose. In such circumstances, to avoid unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court, it is in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings. Petition is allowed. C.P.No.11/2008, now pending as L.P.No.310/2008, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Paravoor against the petitioner, the fourth accused in C.C.No.33/2006, is quashed. 26th November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv