IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1017 of 2011() ------------------------------------ C.C.NO. 1082/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI CRIME NO.854/2008 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SUBAIR, S/O. MUHAMMED, PARAMMAL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPALINANT AND INJURED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -682 031. 2. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. SALEEM, KARANGADAN HOUSE, PULLILANGADI, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 509. 3. ALBERT PETER, S/O. GEORGE, PULLILANGADI, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 509. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.T.SHEEBA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1017 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.1082 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Case is that on 23.10.2008 at about 9.30 hours petitioners and others wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to respondents 2 and 3. Accused other than petitioner faced trial and were acquitted as per Annexure-B, judgment. Since petitioner was not available case against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.1082 of 2010. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against him on the strength of a settlement reached with respondents 2 and 3 and in view of Annexure-B, judgment. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has confirmed the authenticity and genuineness of Annexures-E and F, affidavits of respondents 2 and 3 sworn before and attested by a Notary Public. 3. It is seen from Annexures-E and F, affidavits that respondents 2 and 3 have settled the dispute with the petitioner and that they have no objection in acquitting petitioner. Crl.MC No.1017/2011 2 4. In the light of Annexure-B, judgment and Annexures-E and F, affidavits there is no possibility of respondents 2 and 3 adducing evidence against petitioner. Since the dispute is personal to and between petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and that the dispute is settled, I am inclined to think that continuance of proceedings is of no use. Hence I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.854 of 2008 of Manjeri Police Station (to the extent it concerned petitioner/second accused), cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner, in C.C.No.1082 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks