IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 844 of 2011(A) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.216/2010 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD, CRIME NO.292/2009 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHIMAN @ ANDUMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, R/AT MUMTHAZ MANZIL, BATHERY, SHIRIYA VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA, R/AT SADIQ MANZIL, BATHERY, SHIRIYA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON, SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.ABDULLA, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, R/AT NANGHI, MOGRAL VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SIJU MATHEW, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.844 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.292 of 2009 of Kumbala Police station and C.C.No.216 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on 13.10.2009 petitioners, first accused and other identifiable persons formed unlawful assembly and committed mischief by destroying the fishing net of respondent No.1. Petitioners request to quash proceedings against them on the strength of a settlement reached with respondent No.1. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Annexure-A2 is the agreement executed between petitioners and respondent No.1. Fact of settlement and authenticity of Annexure-A2 are confirmed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. It is seen from Annexure- A2 that parties have settled the dispute. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction has submitted that parties have settled the dispute. Since the offence though involved public tranquility, in essence is a dispute between petitioner and others and respondent No.1 which has been amicably settled, I am inclined to allow the request. Crl.MC No.844/2011 2 4. First accused is not a party to this petition. But in Annexure-A2, agreement it is stated that the agreement is with respect to the first accused as well. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 has no objection in quashing the proceeding against the first accused also. In the light of Annexure-A2, agreement which takes in first accused also there is no reason why the benefit of this order should not be given to accused No. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1, final report in Crime No.292 of 2009 of Kumbala Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceedings against petitioners and other accused in C.C.No.216 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks