IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1500 of 2009()
1. SUNILKUMAR, S/O. SUKUMARAN,
... Petitioner
2. KIRAN, S/O. ARUN KUMAR,
3. RAJESH KUMAR, S/O. VALSALAN,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SHABAD, S/O. HAMSA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
For Respondent :SRI.NISHIL.P.S.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :29/05/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
==================
Crl.M.C. No. 1500 of 2009-F
==================
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009.
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused in Crime No.640/2005 of
Kasaragod Police Station, now pending as S.C.No.401/2006
before Sessions Court, Kasaragod. Prosecution case is that
all the accused committed offences under Sections 341, 324
and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Allegation is that on 3-9-2005 at about 8.30 PM while 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant was walking along the
footpath in front of Roshi Jewellery, in furtherance of their
common intention, 2nd petitioner attempted to beat him with
an iron rode and when 2nd respondent evaded it, 3rd
petitioner hit him with an iron rode, which was also evaded
and the accused thereby committed the offence. This
petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the final report submitted in Crime
No.640/2005 taken cognizance by the Magistrate and now
pending as S.C.No.401/2006 contending that subsequently
Crl.M.C.No.1500/2009
-2-
the dispute between petitioners and 2nd respondent were
settled amicably and now he has no grievance against
petitioners and therefore he has no objection for quashing
the proceedings. Relaying on the decision of the Apex
Court in Madan Mohan Aboot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3)
KLT 19) it is contended that the case is to be quashed. 2nd
respondent appeared through Counsel and also filed
Crl.M.A.No.2449/2009 along with an affidavit stating that
they have settled the dispute and he has no intention to
proceed with the case.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and 2nd
respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions
submitted that the dispute has been settled between the
injured defacto complainant and accused and therefore no
purpose would be served by proceeding with the trial.
4. Allegation against petitioners is that they
committed offences under Sections 341, 324 and 308 read
Crl.M.C.No.1500/2009
-3-
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The case is purely
personal between the 2nd respondent, the defacto
complainant, who is the injured. Annexure I Wound
Certificate shows that only minor injuries were inflicted.
Subsequent settlement of the dispute with 2nd respondent,
the injured defacto complainant, would makes the
possibility of conviction very bleak. Under such
circumstances no fruitful purpose will be served by
undergoing an ordeal of trial, except waste of valuable time
of this Court, which would be used for better purpose.
Under such circumstances, petition is allowed and final
report in Crime No.640/2005 of Kasaragod Police Station
and S.C.No.401/2006 pending before Sessions Court,
Kasaragod taken cognizance on the said final report are
quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
dkr