IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 950 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.431/1999 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. SIDDIQUE P.P., AGED 37 YEARS, MATTOOL NORTH, MATTOOL P.O., KANNUR DIST. 2. SALAM C.M.V., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY, CMV HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH, MATTOOL P.O., KANNUR DIST. 3. IBRAHIM KUTTY, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.ERAMULLAN, MATTOOL NORTH, MATTOOL P.O., KANNUR DIST. 4. SALAM E.T.P., AGED ETP HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH, MATTOOL P.O., KANNUR DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. B.HAMSA HAJI, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, VADIKKAL HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH, MATTOOL P.O., KANNUR DIST - PIN - 670003. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.NASAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.950 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.431 of 1999 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur and Crime No.108 of 1999 of Pazhayangadi Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.143, 447, 427, 506(i) and 323 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-I is the FIR. Annexure-II is the final report. Accused 4 faced trial in C.C.No.340 of 2006 and was acquitted as per Annexure-III, judgment. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and 5 in the final report. Against petitioners 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 case is pending as C.C.No.712 of 2008 while against petitioner 4/accused 5, case is pending as C.C.No.352 of 2009. Petitioners request this Court to quash proceedings against them on the strength of a settlement reached with the first respondent/de facto complainant. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners and first respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for first respondent has also confirmed authenticity and genuineness of Crl.M.C.No.950 of 2011 -: 2 :- Annexure-IV, affidavit. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the motive for incident is not political rivalry though parties belonged to two political factions. 3. Having regard to the nature of offences alleged, that motive is not political rivalry and that the parties have settled the dispute I am inclined to interfere in the proceeding. In the light of the settlement there is no possibility of prosecution having a successful culmination as seen from Annexure-III, judgment acquitting the fifth accused. I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and proceeding against petitioners/accused 1 to 3 and 5 in C.C.Nos.712 of 2008 and 352 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge