IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1816 of 2009() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.7 OF 1999 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- VINOD KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN PILLAI, MUTTATHETHU THEKKETHIL, VAZHUVADI MURI, THAZHAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.R.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BABURAJ, KAIMOOTTIL VEEDU, VAZHUVADI MURI, THAZHAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 1816 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.240/2004 now pending as L.P.48/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara. He was originally first accused in C.C.461/1999. As he was absconding, case as against him was split up and re-filed as C.C.240/2004 and accused 2 to 5 were tried by the learned Magistrate. Under Annexure-A1 judgment the other accused were acquitted finding them not guilty. Under Annexure-A1 judgment learned Magistrate also found that offence involved is not under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, as no grievous hurt was inflicted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash C.C.240/2004 pending as L.P.48/2006 contending that the dispute with the injured defacto complainant and second respondent was subsequently resolved and the other accused were already acquitted for want of evidence and in such circumstances, no purpose will be served CRMC 1816/09 2 by undergoing the ordeal of a trial. Annexure-A3 compromise petition signed by second respondent is also filed to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the petitioner and does not intent to proceed with the evidence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-A1 judgment shows that after recording the evidence, accused 2 to 5 were already found not guilty and acquitted. Learned Magistrate specifically found that no offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code is involved. Annexure-A3 settlement arrived at by the injured defacto complainant establish that even if petitioner is to be tried, second respondent will not depose against him. Hence by such trial except waste of the valuable time of the court, no purpose will be served. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, petition is allowed. C.C.240/04 pending as L.P.48/2006 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.