IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1019 of 2011() --------------------------------------- CC.1098/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD CR. NO.37/2007 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. .................... PETITIONER(S): /ACCUSED 11, 12. ------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMSUDDIN, S/O.IBRAHIM, NATTAKKAL, KARIVEDAKAM GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. HARIS, S/O.MOIDU, NATTAKKAL, KARIVEDAKAM GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): /STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SHO, BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SASI.C, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, KARIVEDAKAM,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671 541. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAIBY PAUL R2 BY ADV. SMT.LISHA.M.G. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1019 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.37 of 2007 of Bedakam Police Station, Kasaragod and C.C.No.1098 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2. The Police after investigation submitted Annexure-A1, final report. It is submitted that accused 1 to 10 faced trial and were acquitted by Annexure-A2, judgment for want of evidence. Since petitioners were working at Bombay they could not take part in the trial. Hence they request to quash proceeding against them on the strength of Annexure-A2, judgment and the settlement reached with respondent No.2, the defacto complainant. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel on either side confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel also confirmed authenticity of joint petition signed by petitioners and respondent No.2. 3. Case is that on account of a bus belonging to respondent No.2 allegedly hitting a car and speeding away, the people connected with the car including petitioners demanded the crew of the bus to pay compensation and, in Crl.MC No.1019/2011 2 connection with that, the alleged incident occurred. Main offences alleged are under Sections 341 and 427 of the IPC. It is seen from the joint petition that parties have settled the dispute. Basically it is between petitioners and respondent No.2. Since the dispute is settled I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1, final report in Crime No.37 of 2007 of Bedakam Police Station, Kasaragod, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.1098 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks