IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3121 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.171/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. C.A.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.ABDUL HAJI, CA.HOUSE, KOOMBARATHODU, KUNDUMKUZHI BANDADUKKA VILLAGE, 2. KAJA @ KARUDHIN S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, 31/08 GASU LAN,E THALANGARA, THALANGARA GRAMAM, 3. GAPPU @ GAFOOR BAVA, S/O.BAVA 32/08 BALANGADI, THALANGARA, THALANGARA GRAMAM, 4. AJITH S/O.PAZHIL PILLAI, 30/08, PATHANAYATH HOUSE, ERUMATHALA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. B.MOHAMMED KUNHI S/O.ABDUL KHADER, 41/07, MINRAJ MAHAL, KOTTOOR, KALIYAR GRAMAM 2. S.I.OF POLICE, ADHUR POLICE STATION. 3. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.MADHU FOR R1 R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3131 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NOs.3121 & 3131 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated 9th October 2009 O R D E R Petitioners in Crl.M.C.3121/2009 are the accused in C.C.171/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod. First respondent is the de facto complainant. Prosecution case is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention, on 29/11/2007 at about 9.45 p.m at Kottur committed house trespass where first respondent with his family were residing and armed with deadly weapons threatened first respondent and also inflicted grievous hurt and thereby committed offences under Sections 452, 326 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Said first respondent is the first petitioner in Crl.M.C.3131/2009 and petitioners 2 to 8 are other accused in crime No.103/2008 of Kasaragod police station. That case was registered based on Annexure- A1 F.I statement of second respondent who is the first petitioner in Crl.M.C.3121/2009 on the allegation that on 25/1/2008 he had returned from Mumbai and on 31/1/2008 while he was proceeding CRMC 3121 & 3131/09 2 towards Kundamkuzhi in a car KL-8/M-9959 driven by his friend, petitioners followed it in a Scorpio vehicle and Alto car and over took the car wherein second respondent was driving and got it stopped and thereafter, threatened second respondent and also attacked him and thereby committed offences under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. These petitions are filed respectively under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes between the parties are settled amicably and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. 2. In Crl.M.C.3121/2009 petitioners along with first respondent filed a joint statement stating that the disputes were settled amicably due to the intervention of mediators and in such circumstances, the case be permitted to be compounded and the first respondent is going for his employment and hence he may not be in a position to appear personally in court. 3. In Crl.M.C.3131/2009 Annexure-A3 affidavit is filed by the second respondent, de facto complainant stating that case was registered based on his statement which was given by a mistake and the entire CRMC 3121 & 3131/09 3 difference of opinion were subsequently sorted out and in view of the settlement it is not necessary to proceed with the case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 5. De facto complainant in C.C.171/2008 is the first accused in crime No.103/2008. First accused in C.C.171/2008 is the de facto complainant in crime No.103/2008. Joint statement filed in Crl.M.C.3121/2009 and the affidavit filed by second respondent in Crl.M.C.3131/2009 establish that entire disputes were amicably settled between the parties. In such circumstances, as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) it is not in the interest to continue the proceedings as consequent to the settlement chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak. Petitions are allowed. C.C.171/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod and crime No.103/2008 of Kasaragod police station are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.