IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 541 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ (C.C. NO.707/09 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANJIRAPPALLY, CRIME NO. 70/1992 OF THE ERUMELI POLICE STATION) ........... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 4: -------------------------------------------- 1. SULAIMAN MOULAVI, S/O.MOHAMMED RAWTHER, HASEENA MANZILIL, MUTTAPPALLY KARA, ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. NAZZRUDDIN @ JAMAL, S/O.KASSIM, ALANKAR BHAVAN, LAHA KARA, PERUNNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKARA. 1ST RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THANKAPPAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, MELETTUVEETIL, MUTTAPPALLY KARA, ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. S.I.OF POLICE, ERUMELI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. MR.SELVIN ABRAHAM, R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.541 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners were accused 1 and 4 in C.C.No. 334/1993 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kanjirappally, taken cognizance for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code against six accused on Annexure-I final report. As petitioners were absconding, accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 were tried by the learned Magistrate after splitting up the case against the petitioners and refiling it as C.C.No. 344/1995. By Annexure-II judgment, all those accused were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that in view of the order of acquittal against the other accused and in view of the settlement of the disputes with first respondent, the defacto complainant, who is CRMC 541/10 2 the injured, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that as petitioners were absconding, the other accused alone were tried and acquitted by the learned Magistrate and entire disputes with the accused were settled amicably and he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and in view of the settlement, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-II judgment of the learned Magistrate establishes that out of the six accused, four were already acquitted after trial finding that they were not members of the unlawful assembly and they did not commit any offence. Annexure-II judgment also shows that including the injured CRMC 541/10 3 first respondent, who was examined as PW1 and the prosecution witnesses, who were examined in support of the prosecution, turned hostile. Affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that there has been complete settlement of the disputes with the petitioners. It is absolutely clear that consequent to the settlement, even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19). Petition is allowed. C.C.No.344/1995, which is now pending as C.C.No.707/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kanjirappally is quashed. 2nd March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv