IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 333 of 2010()
1. VIDYASAGAR JIKESH THINAYATTU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEKANTH, S/O.RAJAPPAN
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SMT.R.SUDHA
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.333 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner was the sixth accused in C.C.No.
778/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court, North Paravur. Prosecution case is
that the six accused formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly with the common object of wrongfully
restraining first respondent and cause hurt and in
furtherance of their common object, on 24.12.1999 at
about 11.30 p.m., while first respondent was riding a
motor cycle, petitioners wrongfully confined him and
with deadly weapons inflicted injuries on him and
thereby committed offences under Sections 143, 147,
148, 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal
Code. As petitioner was absconding, the case as against
him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.220/2009 and the
other accused were tried by the learned Magistrate. By
Annexure-A1 judgment, the remaining five accused were
acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as
against the petitioner contending that as he was in
CRMC 333/10 2
Gulf, he could not appear before the court, when the
other accused were tried and the entire disputes with
the first respondent were later settled amicably and in
view of the settlement and order of acquittal as
against the other accused, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecution.
2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and
filed a joint petition along with the petitioner
stating that entire disputes between them were settled
amicably and therefore, first respondent has no
objection for quashing the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
4. Joint petition filed by the petitioner and
first respondent, who is the injured, establishes that
there has been an amicable settlement of the disputes.
Annexure-A1 judgment shows that when the remaining five
accused were tried, first respondent turned hostile. So
also the other eye witnesses. Consequently, other
prosecution witnesses were not examined. When the
disputes between the parties were settled amicably and
CRMC 333/10 3
the offences alleged are purely personal in nature as
against the first respondent, as held by the Apex Court
in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT
19), it is not in the interest of justice to continue
the prosecution. It is more so, when out of the six
accused, five were already acquitted, consequent to the
settlement and even if petitioner is to be tried, there
is no likelihood of a successful prosecution.
In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.
No.220/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court, North Paravur is quashed.
24th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv