IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1580 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.327/1998 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION S.C.NO.144/2009 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------------ KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, LAKSHMI NIVAS, NADUVILAKKARA CHERRY, TRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VINOD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, MUKALUVILANALUTHUNDIL HOUSE, NADUVILAKKARA CHERRY, TRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN- 691 001 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V. MANU R2 BY ADV. SRI.LOWEL CHERIAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1580 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.327 of 1998 of Kottiyam Police Station and S.C.No.144 of 2009 and L.P.No.24 of 2010 of the Sessions Court, Kollam for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323 and 324 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(i)(x) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989. Case is that on 14.08.1998 at about 8.30p.m while the de facto complainant/second respondent was returning home he was assaulted by petitioner and others. Some of the other accused faced trial in S.C.No.123 of 2005 and were acquitted under Sec.232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Annexure-B, judgment since none of the material prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution. 11th accused approached this Court with Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2011. He was given the benefit of Annexure-B, judgment and proceeding against him was quashed as per order dated April 6, 2011. Petitioner/accused No.2 seeks similar relief. He claims to have settled the dispute with the second respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No.1580 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Counsel for petitioner and second respondent confirmed the settlement. Genuineness and authenticity of Annexure-C, affidavit of the second respondent attested by counsel for second respondent is also confirmed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted after getting instruction that second respondent is not interested in proceeding against petitioner. 3. I have gone through Annexure-B, judgment in S.C.No.123 of 2005. It is seen that none of the material prosecution witnesses including the second respondent supported the prosecution. It is also seen from AnnexureC, affidavit that the dispute is settled between petitioner and second respondent. The benefit of Annexure-B, judgment has already been given to the 11th accused as per order on Crl.M.C.No.1056 of 2011. I find no reason why petitioner should not be given the same benefit also in the light of the settlement. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Proceeding against petitioner in S.C.No.144 of 2009 and L.P.No.24 of 2010 of the Sessions Court, Kollam (arising from Crime No.327 of 1998 of Kottiyam Police Station) are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-