IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4281 of 2010()
1. PRAJIL, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. P.P.YESODHA, D/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 55 YEARS
3. C.DEEPA, W/O.AJEENDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
For Respondent :SRI.J.ABHILASH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/11/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.4281 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010.
O R D E R
Petitioners was the third accused in C.P.No.33 of 2006 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kannur. As
petitioner was absconding, case against him was split up and
remaining six accused were committed to Sessions Court. It was
taken on file as S.C.No.410 of 2007. They were tried by Principal
Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. By judgment dated
30.09.2010, those accused, except fifth accused O.Sabheesh,
who absconded, were acquitted. Petition is filed under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings
pending before the learned Magistrate as L.P.C.No.34 of 2009
against the petitioner contending that in view of the order of
acquittal against the co-accused and settlement with respondents
2, 3 the de facto complainants, it is not in the interest of justice
to continue the prosecution.
2. Respondents two and three appeared through a counsel
and filed a compounding petition along with the petitioner stating
that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent
settlement they may be permitted to compound the offences.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents
Crl.M.C No.4281 OF 2010 2
two and three and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
4. Though petitioner along with respondents two and three
filed a petition to compound the offences, as all offences are not
compoundable, permission cannot be granted to compound the
offences.
5. Prosecution case as seen from Annexure-2 final report is
that on 3.10.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of
trespassing into the house of the second respondent and in
furtherance of the common intention armed with deadly weapons
committed rioting and trespassed into the residential house of
respondents two and three and set fire to the household articles
and caused a loss of Rs.5.5 lakhs and also intimidated
respondents two and three and thereby committed the offences.
Case against the petitioner was split up and the case against
remaining six accused was committed. It was taken on file and
tried by Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery. Case
against petitioner is pending as L.P.C.No.34 of 2009 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kannur. After recording the
evidence, learned Sessions Judge has already acquitted the
accused 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. Case as against the petitioner accused
Crl.M.C No.4281 OF 2010 3
No.5 was split up by the Sessions Court. As a result of acquittal of
five accused, now the case against only the two absconding
accused remains. It is clear from the compounding petition that
respondents two and three has already settled the disputes with
the petitioner. Hence it is clear that even if petitioner is to be
tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. In such
circumstances as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan
Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC), when the
disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution as there is no likelihood of a successful
prosecution and the trial would result only in unnecessary waste
of valuable time of the court. Therefore it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. L.P.C.No.34 of 2009 Judicial First class
Magistrate Court-1, Kannur is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
mns