IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1874 of 2009() ----------------------------------- LP.36/2009 IN CC 932/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASSCOURT, SASTHAMCOTTA IN CRIME NO.378/2004 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED-A3 -------------------------------------- NIZAM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. YUNUSKUNJU, THARAYIL THEKKATHIL, PANAPPETTY MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR. BY ADV. MR.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DIST. 3. HANEEFA, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MAITHEENKUNJU, KOOTTUNGAL THEKKATHIL, PANAPPETTY MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 4. HUSSAIN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. HANEEFA, KOOTTUNGAL THEKKATHIL, PANAPPETTY MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLGE, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 5. AZEEZ, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MAITHEEN KUNJU, KOLLANTE VADAKKATHIL PANAPPETTY MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 6. JAMEELA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. FATHIMA KUNJU, KOLLANTE VADAKKATHIL, PANAPPETTY MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DIST. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB R3 TO R6 BY ADV. MR.K.V.ANIL KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1874 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of June,2009 ORDER Petitioner the absconding third accused in C.C.1192/2004 filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash C.C.932/2008 which is the split up case, contending that the co-accused were already acquitted under Annexure C judgment dated 16.7.2008 and the dispute of respondents 3 to 6 with petitioner were settled and therefore there is no necessity to proceed with the trial. Along with the petition a joint petition was filed by respondents to quash the proceedings, stating that dispute of respondents 3 to 6 with the petitioner were settled and they have no intention to continue the case as against the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 6 are represented by their counsel. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure C judgment whereunder the other two accused were acquitted shows that respondents 3 to 6 Crl.M.C.1874/2009 2 in that case had filed a petition for permission to compound the offences. But it was rejected for the reason that an offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. But they did not depose against the accused and instead deposed that they could not idenify the assailants. In the light of the said fact as well as the assertion of respondents 3 to 6 that their dispute with the petitioner is resolved and they have no intention to proceed against the petitioner, no fruitful purpose would be gained by directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a trial. It would result only in waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstance, in the interest of justice, L.P.36/2009 in C.C.932/2008 pending against the petitioner being the split up case of C.C.1192/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcotta is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006