IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 812 of 2010() ----------------------------------- C.C.611/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR. CR.NO.154/2001 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION. ................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 -------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KANNOM, EZHOME AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SATHEESHAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 29 YEARS, KANNOM, EZHOME AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. A.K. JAYASEELAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, ANA KIZHAKKE VEEDU, KANNOM, EZHOME AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R2 BY ADV. MR.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 812 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 9th day of March,2010 ORDER Petitioners are the accused 3 and 4 in C.C.516/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur. As they were absconding, the case as against them was split up and refiled as C.C.No.611/2004 and accused 1, 2 and 5 were tried. By Annexure A1 judgment, those accused were acquitted finding that consequent to the settlement the de facto complainant the second respondent, who was examined as PW1 in that case, did not support the prosecution case and eye witness also did not support the prosecution case and the other witnessed were given. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against the petitioners contending that consequent to the Crl.M.C.812/2010 2 order of acquittal against the co-accused and the settlement arrived at with the second respondent, the de facto complainant, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature and they have settled the disputes and in such circumstances it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The case against accused 1, 2 and 5 in C.C.516/2001 and the petitioners herein is one and the same. The prosecution case is that on 10.5.2001 at 5.45 a.m when second respondent was going to booth No.107 in connection with the election, the accused formed themselves into an Crl.M.C.812/2010 3 unlawful assembly with a common object of voluntarily causing hurt and preventing him from going to the booth and in furtherance of the common object wrongfully restrained him and also forcibly took away his election identity card and thereby committed offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 427, 323, 324, and 506(i) read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure A1 judgment shows that even when the other accused were tried, a compromise petition was filed before the learned Magistrate but as all the offences are not compoundable it was not allowed. But the judgment establishes that even though second respondent was examined as PW1, and eye witnesses were also examined, none supported the prosecution case. The affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that there has been a complete settlement of the disputes. It is clear that even if he is to be examined in the case against the petitioners, there is no likelihood of Crl.M.C.812/2010 4 giving evidence against them. Hence it would result only unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.611/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006