IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4720 of 2010() ----------------------------------- S.C.NO.172/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ADHOC-II, KASARAGOD. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. IBRAHIM KHALEEL.K.K, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KADER, NIZHA MANZIL, KOTTAPPURAM ROAD, SHIRIYA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD TALUK. 2. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, THAVAKAL MANZIL, SHIRIYA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD TALUK. 3. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THAVAKKAL MANZIL, SHIRIYA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD TALUK. 4. SHARATH K @ ABU, S/O.LATE SEKHAR, AGED 29 YEARS, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, KUMBALANGAD VILLAGE, KANJIRAKODE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VINOD KUMAR. K, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA, KOLLARGUDDE HOUSE, UPPALA POST AND VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK. 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE, MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R1 BY ADV. SMT.LISHA.M.G. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4720 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and first respondent, the de facto complainant in S.C.172/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kasargod, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final report. First respondent is the injured and the de facto complainant. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the first respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the Crmc 4720/10 2 prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint petition along with the petitioners stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, first respondent has no grievance against the petitioners and therefore, case is to be quashed. 3. Separate affidavit was filed by the first respondent stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 4. Annexure-A2 final report reveals that prosecution case is that in furtherance of their common intention, on 18/4/2006, at about 5.50 p.m at Kodivayal, first respondent was called in an autorickshaw from Nayabazar and Crmc 4720/10 3 beat him with hands, iron pipe and caused hurt and grievous hurt to him. It is alleged that if first respondent has not resisted the overt act aimed at his head, his death would have been caused and petitioners thereby committed the offences under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Offences alleged are purely personal in nature. Though offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is alleged, it is only on the basis that if the hit aimed at his head had landed at the intended place, death would have been caused. The very case is that as first respondent resisted that overt act, it did not hit on his head. In the nature of the facts an offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted. 5. As the offences are purely personal Crmc 4720/10 4 in nature against the first respondent and the affidavit filed by the first respondent discloses that he has settled the disputes with the petitioners, as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as ultimately consequent to the settlement, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the Court. Petition is allowed. S.C.172/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Kasargod is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.