IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 953 of 2010 ------------------------------------- CC.640/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7: 1. HAKKIM.P.P, S/O.ASSAINAR, AZHITHALA, THAIKADPPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. T.K.UBAIS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, SEA ROAD, THAIKADAPPURAM, DO. DO. 3. SAKARIYA, S/O.AZEEZ, A.P.ROAD, DO. DO. 4. HARIF, S/O.ABDULLA, HOSPITAL ROAD, DO. DO. 5. MUHAMMED SHEFEEQUE, S/O.MUSTHAFA, COLONY ROAD, DO. DO. 6. SHAFEER.C.H, S/O.MUSTHAFA, A.P.ROAD, DO. DO. 7. SABIR.C.H, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SEA ROAD, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT-STATE: 1. P.C.MOHAMED KUNHI, S/O.LATE HASSAINAR, ORCHA, THAIKADAPPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. CHEPPAN KADAVATHU SHEFEER, S/O.MUHAMMED CHAPPAN KADAVATHU, RESIDING AT CHEPPAN KADAVATHU HOUSE, THAIKKADAPPURAM.P.O, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R3 ADV. SRI.T.PRAVEEN FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.953 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and respondents 1 and 2, the defacto complainants and the injured in C.C.No. 640/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Hosdrug, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 final report. Annexure-A1 final report shows that prosecution case is that on 23.7.2009 at about 5.30 p.m., the seven accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to respondents 1 and 2 after wrongfully restraining them due to previous enmity and in furtherance of the common object, wrongfully restrained respondents 1 and 2 and caused grievous hurt to the first respondent by beating with an iron rod and caused hurt to the second respondent and thereby committed the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that consequent to the settlement of all the CRMC 953/10 2 disputes between petitioners and respondents 1 and 2, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that due to the intervention of mediators, entire disputes with the petitioners were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, they have received compensation, evidenced by Annexure-A2 agreement and they have no intention to prosecute the petitioners further. 3. Though petitioners had earlier filed Crl.M.C. No.457/2010 to quash the proceedings, by Annexure-A5 order, it was dismissed, as second respondent was not a party to the petition, making it clear that petitioners are liberty to approach the court if there is a composition with the second respondent also. It is, subsequently, this petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 5. Annexure-A1 final report shows that offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in CRMC 953/10 3 nature against respondents 1 and 2. Annexure-A2 agreement, with the affidavits of respondents 1 and 2, establish that entire disputes between petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 were settled amicably and consequently, they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. It is clear that consequent to the settlement, if respondents 1 and 2 are to be examined, there is no likelihood of a successful conviction and it would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and there has been settlement of all the disputes between petitioners and respondents 1 and 2, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.640/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Hosdrug is quashed. 9th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv