IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 61 of 2010()
1. SANTHOSH, AGED 22 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. LIJU MON @ MANIKUTTAN, (CW1),
3. PREMAN (CW2), S/O.APPU, T.C.16/786,
4. SHIBU @ RAMU, (CW3), S/O.SOMAN,
5. DEEPU, (CW4), S/O.SUKUMARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :08/01/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO.61 OF 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated 8th January 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner was the second
accused in C.C.437/2002 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate-V,
Thiruvananthapuram. Prosecution case is
that on 12/3/2007 at 7.15 p.m all the
accused formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly with the common
object of causing hurt to respondents 2
to 5 and armed with dangerous weapons,
attacked them and caused hurt and
thereby committed offences under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 452
read with Section 149 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. As the
petitioner and seventh accused were
Crmc 61/10
2
absconding case as against them were re-filed
as C.C.63/2007 and others were tried. By
Annexure-B judgment accused 1,3 to 6 and 8 were
acquitted. As presence of accused 2 and 7 could
not be procured, case against them was
subsequently transferred to the file of long
pending register and is now pending as
L.P.16/2008. Petition is filed under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the
case, as against the petitioner contending that
entire disputes with respondents 2 to 5 were
settled amicably and in view of the settlement,
it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution.
2. Respondents 2 to 5 appeared through
a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating
that entire disputes with the petitioner were
settled amicably and consequent to the
Crmc 61/10
3
settlement, they have no subsisting grievance
against the petitioner and hence they have no
objection for quashing the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, respondents 2 to 5 and learned
Public Prosecutor were heard.
4. Annexure-B judgment shows that out
of the seven accused, except petitioner and
second accused all other accused were already
acquitted after recording the evidence. It also
establishes that offences alleged against the
accused are purely personal in nature as
against respondents 2 to 5, the injured in the
case. Affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 5
establish that there has been complete
settlement of the disputes with the petitioner.
As held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot
v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) it is
Crmc 61/10
4
clear that consequent to the settlement, even
if petitioner is to be directed to undergo the
ordeal of a trail, no fruitful purpose will be
served and it would only result in unnecessary
waste of valuable time of the court. In such
circumstances, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. L.P.16/2008 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V,
Thiruvananthapuram as against petitioner is
quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.