IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 136 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.409/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDURG .................... (CRIME NO.90/2009 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT) PETITIONER(S): 7TH ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- ABDUL NAZEER.K.A,S/O.BENEER ABBAS, AGED 20 YEARS,RESIDING AT POOVATHOTTI HOUSE, CHEMNAD VILLAGE,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,BEKAL POLICE STATION,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. K.M.MOHAMMED NIYAS,S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 29 YEARS,RESIDING AT CHALIYAMKODE HOUSE, KALANAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B.PRAMOD R2 BY ADV.MR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.136 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the seventh accused in C.C.409/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioner contending that the case has been settled with the second respondent de facto complainant. Second respondent appeared and he filed Annexure-3 affidavit stating that petitioner is his friend and he approached second respondent to settle his case and he Crmc 136/10 2 is prepared to settle the case as against the petitioner alone and he has no intention to proceed against the petitioner and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the case as against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that when the case has not been settled with the other accused, there cannot be a quashing of the cognizance taken against the petitioner alone. I find force in the submission. Offences alleged against all the accused are the same. Hence there cannot be a piecemeal settlement with one of the accused. Hence, the case cannot be quashed as sought for, based on settlement. Crmc 136/10 3 Petition is dismissed. But if there is settlement with all the accused, they are at liberty to approach this court for quashing the proceedings. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.