IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2720 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.26/04 OF ANCHUTHENGU POLICE STATION) ............................................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. ANAMIR, S/O SADASIVAN, UDAYAGIRI VEEDU, KAIKKARA, UDAYANVILAKOM, KAIKKARA DESOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JAYAN, S/O VIJAYAN, PALLIPURAYIDOM VEEDU, ANJUTHENGU, ANJUTHENGU DESOM, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 2720 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 9th day of September,2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused 2 and 4 in Crime No.26/2004 of Anjuthengu Police Station registered for the offence under sections 143,147,149,323 and 308 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the final report, filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala contending that the dispute with the injured were settled and therefore it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as is clear from Annexure C order passed by Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.M.C. 1165/2004, there was a settlement of the dispute as an affidavit was filed before the court stating that they have settled the matter and therefore the case is to be quashed. Crl.M.C.2720/2009 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after filing of this petition the statement of the injured de facto complainant was taken and he reported that there was no settlement. 5. Petitioner has not impleaded the de facto complainant. There is nothing before the court to prove that there was a composition with the de facto complainant as claimed. In such circumstance, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the petition will not affect the right of the petitioner to approach this court along with the de facto complainant/injured to get the case quashed, if there was a subsequent composition. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006