IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2733 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.636/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL HAKIM, S/O.KOCHUNNI, KOLLAM PARAMPIL HOUSE, LEKSHOM VEEDU COLONY, MANJUMMAL, ELOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. RINIL, S/O.JOY, KALATHIPARAMP VEEDU, LEKSHOM VEEDU COLONY, MANJUMMAL, ELOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. ADV. SRI.U.SYAM KUMAR FOR R2 SRI. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2733 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.636/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court North Paravoor taken cognizance for the offence under section 324, 326 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code on Annexure A final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Eloor. Second respondent is the defacto complainant. This petition is filed to quash the prosecution, contending that the disputes with the second respondent is amicably settled out of court and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. 2. The second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that he is the injured and the defacto complainant and as the disputes were settled he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No. 2733 OF 2009 . : 2 : 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure A final report shows that allegation against the petitioner is that on the night of 5.12.1999, petitioner along with two others inflicted grievous hurt on second respondent, by beating him with iron rods and thereby committed the offences. The affidavit filed by the second respondent. The injured shows that he has already settled the dispute with the petitioner. In such circumstances, even if the petitioner is put to be tried, there is no possibility of a successful prosecution. 5. In such circumstances, as held by the apex court in MADANMOHAN ABBOT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2008(3)KLT 19(SC), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and waste the valuable time of the Court. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.636/05 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravoor is quashed. ( M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE) jma