IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3970 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.911/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ----------------------------------------- UNAIS P.V, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KADER @ KAVUNHI, R/AT PALLIKKALATH VEEDU, PO KAIDAKKAD 671 313 PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT/STATE & CW NO.1 IE. DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.KRISHNAN, A GED 51 YEARS S/O.KUNHAMBU, R/AT CHERUNGAD, ORI PO KAIDAKKAD 671 313, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3970 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 26th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was the first accused in C.C.1477/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427 and 153 A read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioner along with accused 6,7 and 15 absconded, case against them was re-filed as C.C.911/2010 and the remaining accused were tried. Learned Magistrate, by Annexure-AII judgment, acquitted those accused. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against him contending that entire disputes were settled amicably with the second respondent and Crmc 3970/10 2 consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Annexure-AIII consent letter was also produced to show that there has been a settlement of the disputes with the second respondent. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and therefore, case against the petitioner is to be quashed. In addition, second respondent along with petitioner filed a joint petition seeking permission to compound the offence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Crmc 3970/10 3 4. Though offence under Section 153 A of Indian Penal Code is alleged and if the offence is involved, permission cannot be granted to compound the offence or it is not proper to invoke the inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the offence, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that statement of the second respondent recorded in C.C.1477/2007 establish that the said offence is not attracted. Other offences are all purely personal in nature and if there has been settlement of the dispute, offences could be quashed. 5. Prosecution case is that on 19/2/2006 at about 7.55 p.m, 18 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing rioting and caused destruction of the articles belonging to the Crmc 3970/10 4 second respondent and thereby committed the offences. Affidavit filed by the second respondent and the joint petition filed with the petitioner establish that entire disputes were settled amicably. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.911/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg against the petitioner is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.