IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 724 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.405/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. KADAKOTTEERI NOUSHAD, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, BUSHARA MANZIL, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. C.C. NOUSHAD, S/O.VEERANKUTTY, KAKKATTU HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, KARIPUR, KUMMINIPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KADAKOTTEERI PAREED, KANNANCHEERIYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL, KUMMINIPARAMBU, 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. SHAJI, S/O.KARIKUTTY, PALLIKKAL, THIROORANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.B. PRAMOD. R2 BY ADV. SMT.VRINDA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.724 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners were accused 6 to 8 in C.C.No. 497/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final report. As petitioners were absconding, the case as against them was split up and refiled as C.C.No.405/2009 and the other accused were tried by the learned Magistrate. By Annexure-B judgment, those accused were acquitted. Annexure-B judgment shows that when the second respondent, the defacto complainant, who is the injured, was examined, he originally deposed that he could not identify the persons who caused hurt to him and it was the result of a group clash. Subsequently, he filed a compounding petition stating that entire disputes with the accused were amicably settled. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the Magistrate contending CRMC 724/10 2 that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it 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 other accused were already acquitted and the case was settled and he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that on 26.9.2005 at about 5.45 p.m., in order to take revenge for not permitting the accused to cast their votes, in furtherance of the common object to cause hurt to the second respondent, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully restrained second respondent and caused hut to him and thereby, all the accused committed the offences. Annexure-B judgment establishes that when the case was being tried as against accused 1 to 5 and 9 to 11, first respondent filed a petition before the CRMC 724/10 3 Magistrate stating that entire disputes were settled amicably. Out of the eleven accused, eight were already acquitted by Annexure-B judgment. Affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that the disputes with the petitioners were also settled amicably. It is clear that, consequent to the settlement, even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when there has been an amicable settlement of the disputes with the petitioners and the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature as against second respondent, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.405/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II (Forest Offences), Manjeri is quashed. 2nd March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv