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. 4857 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.NO.950/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I,HOSDURG ..... (CRIME NO.67/2003 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION) ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. K.K.SURENDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.C.V.KELU NAIR, RESIDING AT KANATHIL VEEDU, UTHIRCHANKAVU, POST KALICHANADUKKAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. PUTHUMANA GEORGEKUTTY @ JOHN GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR MOOPPIL BUS STOP, MOOPPIL, THAYANNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KALICHANADUKKAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. V.KANNAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.PAKKEERAN, R/AT.PAYYANGANAM, KALICHANADUKKAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010 ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.4908 OF 2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.4857 & 4908 of 2010 ------------------------------- COMMON ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 950/2006 and C.P.No.136/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdrug. C.C.No.950/2006 was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-2 final report submitted by Circle Inspector of Police in Crime No.67/2003 of Hosdrug Police Station. Contending that offences committed include an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code also, second respondent, the defacto complainant, filed Annexure-2 private complaint (Crl.M.C.No.4908/2010) before the learned Magistrate. It was taken cognizance for the offences under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Arms Act, in addition to the offences CRMC 4857&4908/10 2 already taken cognizance in C.C.No.950/2006. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and submitted that evidenced by Annexure-3 agreement and joint statement filed in Crl.M.C.No. 4908/2010, entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that petitioners, along with ten others, who could not be identified, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of threatening the second CRMC 4857&4908/10 3 respondent on account of previous enmity and in furtherance of their common object, on 14.2.2003 at about 2 a.m., armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into House No.X/461 of Velloor Panchayat and threatened the second respondent demanding return of the documents and also caused damages to the house by breaking the mirror, electric switch board, bulbs, windows and marble flooring and thereby committed the offences. In the private complaint, second respondent alleged that gun shots were fired, with intention to cause death of second respondent, but fortunately, he was not hit and thereby, petitioners committed the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code also. Not even a hurt was caused to the second respondent or to any of his family members. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and all the disputes were settled amicably between the accused and the injured and CRMC 4857&4908/10 4 the defacto complainant, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. In the light of the joint petition filed by the second respondent along with the agreement jointly executed by the petitioners and second respondent evidencing settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitions are allowed. C.C.No.950/2006 and C.P. No.136/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdrug are quashed. 22nd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv