IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4057 of 2010() --------------------------------------- (CC.NO.963/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY) ......... (CRIME NO.65/2010 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): A1 TO A3: ----------------------------------------- 1. BABU, PALAYIL THEKKATHIL VEETIL, PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SUNI, TSUNAMI COLONY, PALLIPUREDAM VAKA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SHIBI, SHANKUTHARA KIZHAKKATHIL. MEEKKADU, PANMANA.P.O., PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 001. 2. LAKSHMANADAS, S/O. VISWANATHAN PILLAI, KALLMPALLY VADAKKETHIL, CHITTOOR MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4057 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 27th day of October,2010 ORDER Petitioners 2 and 3 are the accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant and the injured in C.C.963/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagapally taken cognizance for the offences under sections 341, 324 and 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were settled with the second respondent. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that first petitioner is not an accused at all and the name of the second petitioner is different from the name of the second accused in the final report. Learned Public Prosecutor Crl.M.C.4057/2010 2 also pointed out that as against the second respondent , proceedings were initiated under KAPA and the settlement is arrived at to circumvent the order, as second respondent is the accused in a case which was sought to be quashed and later withdrawn. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. As per Annexure II final report, first petitioner is not an accused at all. The name of the second accused is also different. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed granting liberty to the concerned accused, to file a proper application in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006