IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 955 of 2010 -------------------------------- [CC.NO.36/2010 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL] .................... PETITIONERS/A1 TO A6: ----------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED SHIBINU (A1), S/O.MUHAMMED NOOHU, MANJAPPARA KAITHAKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, MANJAPPARA DESOM, PULIMATHU VILLAGE. 2. BASHEER, S/O.JAMAL MUHAMMED (A2), K.P.HOUSE, MANJAPPARA, OOMEN PALLIKARA DESOM, PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL VILLAGE. 3. YUSUF KHAN, S/O.MUHAMMED RASHEED (A3), MANJAPPARA KAITHAKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, OOMEN PALLIKARA DESOM, PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL VILLAGE. 4. SALIM, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED (A4), SALIM MANZIL, MANJAPPARA DESOM, PULIMATHU VILLAGE. 5. SHAHANAZ, S/O.SHANAVAS (A5), K.P.HOUSE, MANJAPPARA, VAMANAPURAM DESOM, PULIMATHU VILLAGE. 6. SHAN, S/O.MUHAMMED RASHEED (A6), BLOCK NO.80, MANJAPPARA, VAMANAPURAM DESOM, PULIMATHU VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.SHAJIN S.HAMEED. RESPONDENTS/CW1: ------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHIBU, S/O.SURENDRAN, (CWI), BACK OF PUTHIYAKAVU TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, PUTHIYAKAVU DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B. PRAMOD, R2 BY ADV. MR.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 955 & 959 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of March,2010 ORDER Petitioners in Crl.M.C.955/2010 are the accused in C.C.36/2010. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.959/2010 are the accused in C.C.35/2010, both on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal. Second respondent in Crl.M.C.955/2010 is the first petitioner in Crl.M.C.959/2010. Respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 are petitioners 1 and 4 in Crl.M.C.955/2010. Both cases are in respect of the same incident. One is the main case and the other its countercase. Prosecution case in Crime 35/2010 is that the petitioners in Crl.M.C.959/2010 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to respondents 2 and 3 and in furtherance of the common object, Crl.M.C.955 & 959 of 2010 2 they committed rioting on 3.3.2009 at 2.30 p.m, on the front varandha of tea shop PP IV/559 caused and hurt to second respondent by beating him on his face and kicking on his leg and also caused hurt to the third respondent, by beating him and they thereby committed offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case in Crime 36/2010 is that petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to second respondent and committed rioting on 3.3.2009 at 2.30 p.m at Manjappara junction and caused hurt on second respondent and thereby committed offences under sections 143, 147,148,149,294(b), 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. These petitions are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the respective final reports contending that the entire disputes in the main case and the counter case were amicably settled. Crl.M.C.955 & 959 of 2010 3 The affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 and the affidavit filed by the second respondent in Crl.M.C.955/2010 show that they have amicably settled all the disputes with the respective petitioners and they have no subsisting grievance against them and therefore the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent in Crl.M.C.955/2010 and petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 and the Public Prosecutor were heard. The affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 and the affidavit of second respondent in Crl.M.C.955/2010 establish that entire disputes with the petitioners were settled amicably. Final reports taken cognizance establish that offences alleged against the respective petitioners are purely personal in nature as against respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 and second respondent in Crl.M.C.955 & 959 of 2010 4 Crl.M.C.955/2010. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) when the offences are purely personal in nature and there is amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecutions. Petitions are allowed. C.C.35/2010 and C.C.36/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Attingal are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006