IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1528 of 2009() ------------------------- (C.C.NO.197/2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE NO.II PALAKKAD AS L.P.568/2004) (CRIME NO.188/1996 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION) ------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------ VALSALAN, S/O.N.KUTTAPPAN, MANIANKAD HOUSE, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, KONGAD POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.188/96 2. JAYADEVAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 42, CHIRAKKAL KUNNATH HOUSE, PANTHIRANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1528 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 29th day of May,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.197/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.II, Palakkad which was subsequently refiled as L.P.568/2004. The allegation is that all the accused committed offence under sections 143,147,148,341,324,427 read with section 149 of I.P.C. As the petitioner was absconding, the other accused were tried and were acquitted. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the dispute with the second respondent de facto complainant has already been settled and all the material witnesses have turned hostile in the case already tried and in such circumstance no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing Crl.M.C.1528/2009 2 with the trial and therefore the prosecution is to be quashed. 2. Second respondent appeared through Advocate Sri.K.N.Abhilash and submitted that as per the joint petition filed (Crl.M.Appl.2565/2009) second respondent has already stated that the parties have settled their dispute and there is no objection for quashing the proceedings. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer has taken the statement of the second respondent and he has stated that he is not proceeding with the case. 3. When the co-accused were already acquitted after trial, on the failure of the prosecution witnesses to give evidence against the accused and the de facto complainant who was examined earlier as PW2 has already filed a petition stating that he is not intending to proceed with the case and he has settled the dispute with the petitioner, no useful purpose will be served by continuing with Crl.M.C.1528/2009 3 the trial of the case. When a successful conviction is very bleak, in the circumstance of the case, it would be unnecessary to waste the valuable time of the court. In such circumstance, petition is allowed. The case against the petitioner pending as L.P.568/2004 in Crime 188/1996 of Kongad Police Station is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006