IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 457 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------- [CC.NO.640/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, HOSDURG] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. HAKKIM.P.P, S/O.ASSAINAR,AZHITHALA, THAIKADAPPURAM,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. T.K.UBAIS,S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,SEA ROAD, THAIKADAPPURAM,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SAKARIYA,S/O.AZEEZ,A.P.ROAD, THAIKADAPPURAM,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. HARIF,S/O.ABDLLA,HOSPITAL ROAD, THAIKKADAPPURAM,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. MUHAMMED SHEFFEQUE,S/O.MUSTHAFA, COLONY ROAD,THAIKADAPPURAM,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. SHAFEER.C.H,S/O.MUSTHAFA,A.P.ROAD, THAIKKADAPPURAM,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. SABIR.C.H,S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,SEA ROAD, THAIKKADAPPURAM,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT-STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.C.MOHAMED KUNHI,S/O.LATE HASSAINAR, ORCHA,THAIKADAPPURAM,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.T.PRAVEEN, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.457 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 to 7 and first respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.640/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court- II, Hosdrug, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal on Annexure-A1 final report. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken. Annexure-A1 final report shows that hurt was caused to CW2 also after confining her along with CW1. In such circumstances, when there is no case that there was an amicable settlement of the disputes with CW2 also, the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the court, if there is a composition with CW2 also. 2nd March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv