IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1521 of 2009() ------------------------- SC.557/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 8: --------------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ, S/O.MANOHARAN, KUCHUKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, VALLIKODU MURI, VALLIKODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SANKESH G.NAIR, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, THIKKUMPETHU KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, VALLIKODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. SHERIN JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, MATATHIL HOUSE, VETTIPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 4. NISHAD, S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, THAIKKOTTATHIL HOUSE, VALLIKODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 5. SREEJITH, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM HOUSE, VALLIKODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 6. RAJEEV, S/O.RAJENDRAN NAIR, RAJEEV BHAVAN, VALLIKODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 7. SREEJESH, S/O.PODIYAN, ARAYALUNIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, VALLIKODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 8. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SANTHAMMA, KOCHUKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, VALLIKODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHEERY TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, MR.V.V.RAJA. Kss ..2/- ...2..... CRMC.NO.1521/2009 RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHERIFF, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, M.C.MANZIL, KULASEKARAPATHI, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.M.REVIKRISHNAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2549/2009 IN CRMC.NO.1521/2009 DISMISSED 09/06/2009 SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 1521 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 9th June 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in S.C.557/2008 on the file of Additional Sessions court, (Adhoc) III, Pathanamthitta. Prosecution case is that due to the grudge against the first respondent the injured defacto complainant who joined with U.D.F councilors of the Municipality petitioners in furtherance of their common intention to cause the death of first respondent, on 10/1/2007 at about 10.15 a.m attacked first respondent when he got down near the Municipality office from a Tata Sumo along with the UDF councilors, first petitioner restrained him and second petitioner with a stone hit on his head and inflicted injury and petitioners 3 to 8 beat him with their hands and sticks and thereby committed offences under Sections 341, 323 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Based on Annexure-A2 final report, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. As the offence under Section 308 of Indian CRMC 1521/09 2 Penal Code is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, he committed the case and it is now pending before the sessions court. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the sessions case based on the decisions of Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Manoj Sharma v. State, 2008 (4) KLT 417 and Nikhil Merchant v. State of UP (2008 (3) KHC 955) contending that the dispute of the petitioners with first respondent was amicably settled and first respondent has no intention to proceed with the case and offences alleged are purely personal in nature against first respondent and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Along with the petition an affidavit of the first respondent/defacto complainant was filed where he re-iterated that subsequently the dispute with the petitioners were amicably settled and they are now living as good friends and he has decided not to proceed with the case and that decision was taken not due to any undue influence, threat, coercion or inducement and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings and a petition for compounding the offence CRMC 1521/09 3 under Section 320 could not be filed as one of the offences is not compoundable. First respondent is represented by a counsel. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Affidavit of first respondent and submission of the learned counsel appearing for first respondent establish that dispute of the petitioners was later amicably settled. Though offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is also alleged Annexure-A3 wound certificate shows that the only injury sustained by first respondent was a lacerated wound 1x2 c.m on the back of his head and though CT scan was taken, it was found normal. Offence alleged against petitioners is purely of personal against first respondent. When first respondent has already settled the dispute with petitioners, there is no chance for a successful prosecution in the event of a trial. In such circumstances, as held by the Apex court in Manoj Sharma's case and Madan Mohan Abbot's case (supra) it will not be in the in the interest of justice to proceed with the case and to waste the valuable CRMC 1521/09 4 time of the court. Hence in the interest of justice, petition is allowed. Proceedings in S.C.557/2008 on the file of Additional Sessions court, (Adhoc) Fast Track-III, Pathanamthitta is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.