IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1117 of 2010() ------------------------------------- LP.128/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MALAPPURAM CRIME NO.515/2006 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. SALMANUL FARIS @ SALMAN FARIS, S/O.MAMMED, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED YASEEN @ SAMEER YASEEN, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, POOTHANARI HOUSE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. K.P.YOUSAF, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, VATTAPARAMBU CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. R2 BY ADV. SMT.VRINDA PAUL. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 1117 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 8th day of April,2010 ORDER Petitioners are accused 2 and 4 in Crime No.515/2006 of Kondotty Police Station. On submission of the final report case as against accused 1, 3, 5 and 6 were committed to the Sessions Court as per order in C.P.36/2007 after splitting up the case against the petitioners which is now pending as L.P.128/2007. Accused 1, 3, 5 and 6 were tried by the Sessions Court, Manjeri in S.C.190/2007 and they were acquitted. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case pending against them before the committal court contending that as the entire disputes were settled amicably with second respondent the de facto complainant who is also the injured, it Crl.M.C.1117/2010 2 is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that the incident occurred on 30.5.2006 at 11 p.m while he was travelling in a motor cycle and the accused attacked and inflicted injuries and after splitting the case as against the petitioners, accused 1, 3, 5 and 6 were tried and acquitted and in respect of the same incident C.C.418/2008 was pending before the Judicial First Class Manjeri as a countercase and it has already been settled amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure A final report taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate shows that prosecution case is that on 30.5.2006 at about 11 p.m when second Crl.M.C.1117/2010 3 respondent was proceeding in a motor cycle from Kondotty Vattaparamba the accused armed themselves with deadly weapons like iron rod, wooden pieces wrongfully restrained the motor cycle and scolded the second respondent with obscene words and hit him with iron rod and if he had not evaded, the iron rod would have landed on the body of the second respondent and it would have caused his death and therefore accused committed the offences under sections 143, 147,148,341, 323, 294(b) and 308 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Though an offence under section 308 IPC is alleged, Annexure B wound certificate shows that there was only pain and swelling behind the neck of the second respondent, when he was examined immediately after the incident by the doctor. The allegation for attracting an offence under section 308 of Indian Penal Code is for the reason that if second respondent had not evaded, he would have sustained injury and it would have caused his death. In such circumstances, it is absolutely Crl.M.C.1117/2010 4 clear that the offence under section 308 IPC is not attracted. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature as against the second respondent. The co-accused were already acquitted. The affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature as against the second respondent and there has been complete settlement of all the disputes between the petitioners and second respondent, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. L.P.128/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006