IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2421 of 2009 --------------------------------- CC.761/2008 AND PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOLENCHERRY ............................................ PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 & 12 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. PAUL VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, MEKKAMKUNNEL VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 2. GEORGE, S/O.CHACKO PILLAI, MADATHIKUDY VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 3. SUNNY, S/O.MATHAI, PANDYAPILLY VEETTIL, NJARLLOOR KARAYIL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 4. ALIAS, S/O.VARKEY, MADATHUMPADY VEETTIL, CHOORAKKADU KARAYIL, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 5. ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.MADHAVI AMMA, CHALIN VEETTIL, KADAYIRUPPU KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE. 6. MUHAMMED, S/O.PAKKU, KIPPETHU VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 7. PAULOSE, S/O.MATHAI, NARAKATHUKUDY VEETIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 8. CHERIAN, S/O.CHACKO PILLAI, MADATHIKUDY VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. CRL. MC 2421/2009 9. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, PARAKKAL VEETTIL, CHELAKKULAM KARAYIL, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 10. JOSEPH, S/O.CHACKO PILLAI, MADATHIKUDY VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 11. ELDO, S/O.VARGHESE, OLANGATTU VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 12. ELDOSE, S/O.JACOB, PANTHAKKADAL VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): CWS 1,2,4 & 5 & STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU, S/O.KUNJIKUTTAN, THOZHUTHUNGAL VEEDU, CHOORAKKADU KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 2. JAYAN, S/O.MATHEW, KANJIRAKKATTU VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 3. THANKACHAN, S/O.KUNJU, AIKKARAKUNNATHU VEETTIL, CHOORAKKADU BHAGOM, VILANGUKARAYIL, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 4. VIJAYAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, MANATHUPADAM VEETTIL, VILANGUKARAYIL, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.JOY FOR R1-4 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2421 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are accused and first respondent defacto complainant in C.C.761/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry. Prosecution case is that petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to first respondent and in furtherance of their common object, caused hurt by beating with a cadjan string and throwing stones at respondents 2 to 4, the injured and thereby committed offences under Sections 141, 143, 147 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 9 (B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that disputes with respondents 1 to 4 were amicably settled and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. Respondents 1 to 4 appeared through a counsel and also filed separate CRMC 2421/09 2 affidavits stating that disputes with petitioners were amicably settled and in such circumstances, they have no objection for quashing the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, respondents 1 to 4 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Affidavit of respondent No.1, defacto complainant and the injured respondents 2 and 4 establish that there was amicable settlement of all the disputes. Prosecution case itself is that when first respondent objected to the blasting of rocks, petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked respondents 1 to 4 and inflicted injuries in furtherance of their common object. It is clear from the prosecution case that offences are personal in nature as against respondents 1 to 4. When there is settlement of the disputes with petitioners and respondents 1 to 4 and consequent to the settlement chance of a successful prosecution is very bleak, it is not in the interest of justice to prosecute the case further as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Manoj Sharma v. State CRMC 2421/09 3 (2008 (4) KLT 417) and Nikhil Meachant v. State of of UP (2008 (3) KHC). Petition is allowed. C.C.761/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.