IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3216 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- [C.C.NO.1014/09 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KOLENCHERY] .......... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SUBAIR, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.MACCAR, KORAKKANATTU VEETTIL, PALLIKARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT. A.A.GEETHA. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682 825. 2. NAINAR M.M, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS, NETTUKUDI HOUSE, PERINGALA, KUMARAPURAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 825. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO.3834/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3216 & 3834 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 24th day of September,2010 ORDER Petitioner in Crl.M.C.3216/2010 is the accused in C.C.1014/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kolencherry. He is the injured in C.P. 22/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kolencherry. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.3834/2010 are the accused in O.P. 22/2010. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.3216/2010 is the second respondent in Crl.M.C.3834/2010. First petitioner in Crl.M.C.3834/2010 is the second respondent in Crl.M.C.3216/2010. The petitions are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the Magistrate contending that entire disputes were settled Crl.M.C.3216 & 3834 of 2010 2 amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent in Crl.M.C.3216/2010 is the first petitioner in Crl.M.C.3834/2010 and the injured in that case. He appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes with the petitioner was settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, he has no grievance against petitioner and as they are now living as friends, he has no objection to quash the proceedings. 3. Second respondent in Crl.M.C.3834/2010, appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes with the petitioners were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, he has no grievance against the petitioners and as they are now living as good friends the case is to be quashed. Crl.M.C.3216 & 3834 of 2010 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were head. 5. The final report taken cognizance in C.C.1014/2009(Annexure I in Crl.M.C.3216/2010) shows that prosecution case is that because of the previous inimity of the petitioner with the second respondent on 30.11.2009 at about 9 p.m petitioner came in a scooter and caused grievous hurt to the second respondent using a knife and thereby committed the offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure I final report in Crl.M.C.3834/2010 taken cognizance as C.P.22/2010 reveals that prosecution case is that because of previous inimity of the petitioner with the second respondent, on 16.2.2010 at about 5.30 a.m while second respondent reached near the house of Ahammadkunju in his scooter, petitioners jumped in front of the scooter and got it stopped and Crl.M.C.3216 & 3834 of 2010 4 thereafter first petitioner with an iron rod hit on the head of the second respondent and petitioners 3 and 4 wrongfully restrained the second respondent and first petitioner then hit on the left leg of the second respondent with an iron rod and second petitioner hit on the left hand with a wooden stick and caused fracture of the left leg as well as right hand and thereby committed the offences under sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 6. The affidavit filed by the respective injured in both the cases reveal that entire disputes with the respective accused were settled amicably. The final reports also reveal that offences alleged against the respective petitioners are purely personal in nature against the injured second respondent. When the affidavit of the respective second respondent establishes that entire disputes were settled amicably and Crl.M.C.3216 & 3834 of 2010 5 consequent to the settlement they have no grievance against petitioners, as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Petitions are allowed. C.C. 1014/2009 and C.P.22/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate's Court, Kolencherry are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006