IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 333 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.220/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, N.PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- VIDYASAGAR JIKESH THINAYATTU S/O.THINAYATTU KUTTAPPAN VIDYASAGAR, THINAYATTU HOUSE, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.R.SUDHA RESPONDENTS/STATE: -------------------------------- 1. SREEKANTH, S/O.RAJAPPAN THAIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTUVALLYKKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.333 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the sixth accused in C.C.No. 778/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, North Paravur. Prosecution case is that the six accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of wrongfully restraining first respondent and cause hurt and in furtherance of their common object, on 24.12.1999 at about 11.30 p.m., while first respondent was riding a motor cycle, petitioners wrongfully confined him and with deadly weapons inflicted injuries on him and thereby committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioner was absconding, the case as against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.220/2009 and the other accused were tried by the learned Magistrate. By Annexure-A1 judgment, the remaining five accused were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner contending that as he was in CRMC 333/10 2 Gulf, he could not appear before the court, when the other accused were tried and the entire disputes with the first respondent were later settled amicably and in view of the settlement and order of acquittal as against the other accused, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint petition along with the petitioner stating that entire disputes between them were settled amicably and therefore, first respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Joint petition filed by the petitioner and first respondent, who is the injured, establishes that there has been an amicable settlement of the disputes. Annexure-A1 judgment shows that when the remaining five accused were tried, first respondent turned hostile. So also the other eye witnesses. Consequently, other prosecution witnesses were not examined. When the disputes between the parties were settled amicably and CRMC 333/10 3 the offences alleged are purely personal in nature as against the first respondent, 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. It is more so, when out of the six accused, five were already acquitted, consequent to the settlement and even if petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C. No.220/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, North Paravur is quashed. 24th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv