IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1917 of 2009()
1. KIZHAKKAYIL KUNHABDULLA,
... Petitioner
2. KUNDATTIL SIDDIQUE,S/O.ABDULLA HAJI,
3. THAYYULLATHIL HANEEFA,S/O.MOIDU HAJI,
4. THAZHA KODAKKADU IQBAL,S/O.MOIDU HAJI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. KANNAN,S/O.ONAKKAN,AGED 56 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
For Respondent :SMT.C.V.BINDU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :19/06/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No.1917 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 19th day of June,2009
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in C.C.371/2006
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Vatakara. Second respondent is the de facto
complainant. The case against the petitioners is that
they committed offences under sections
143,147,148,447,427 read with section 149 of Indian
Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings
contending that the dispute with the second respondent
has already been settled and second respondent has no
further grievance against them and he has no intention
to proceed against the petitioners. Evidently the
petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure as offences under sections 143,147,148 are
not compoundable under section 320 of Indian Penal
Code. Along with the petition an affidavit of the
second respondent has been filed stating that his
disputes with the petitioners have been settled due to
the intervention of mediators and he has received the
Crl.M.C.1917/2009 2
damages and has no intention to prosecute the case further.
Second respondent also appeared through his counsel.
Learned counsel submitted that the matter has been settled
and second respondent has no intention to proceed with the
case. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted
that the dispute was settled between the de facto
complainant and the petitioners.
2. In view of the settlement, as is clear from the
affidavit of the second respondent, considering the fact
that the offence alleged against petitioners is purely
personal against the second respondent who had already
received the damages for the loss sustained, I do not find
any necessity, in the interest of justice, to continue the
proceedings. When the prospect of a successful prosecution
is bleak, in view of the settlement continuation of the
proceedings would only result in unnecessary waste of
valuable time of the court. In such circumstance, petition
is allowed. C.C.371/2006 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara as against the petitioners
is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006