IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1577 of 2010()
1. BINEESH,AGED 21 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SARATH,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.SIVAN PULICKAL,
3. ANTONY,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.THOMAS,
4. VAISAKH,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.THAMPI,
5. DILJITH,AGED 20 YEARS,
6. NIKHIL RAJ,AGED 21 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. SIJU,AGED 28 YEARS,
3. SINOJ AGED 24 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.AMJAD ALI
For Respondent :SRI.MANSOOR B.H.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :03/09/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1577 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.
276/2010 of Munambam Police Station, registered
under Annexure-1 FIR for the offences under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case
is that on 4.4.2010 at about 6.15 p.m., while one
of the accused was riding the motor cycle rashly
and negligently, second respondent asked him to be
careful, which was not liked by him and when the
second respondent, along with the third respondent,
was proceeding to the temple, all the accused, due
to the said enmity, formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly, with the common object of
causing injuries to respondents 2 and 3, hit
respondents 2 and 3 on their head with stones and
inflicted injuries. It is alleged that if the
second respondent has not evaded while he was nit
CRMC 1577/10 2
with the stone, his death would have been caused
and therefore, an offence under Section 308 of
Indian Penal Code is also incorporated. This
petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings
contending that entire disputes with respondents 2
and 3, the injured, were settled amicably.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a
counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that
they have settled all the disputes with the
petitioners and therefore, they have no objection
for quashing the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the
wound certificates of respondents 2 and 3 as well
as the discharge summary issued from Amrita
Hospital, where respondents 2 and 3 were treated
consequent to the injuries sustained.
CRMC 1577/10 3
5. The wound certificates and the discharge
summary establish that respondents 2 and 3 did not
sustained any grievous hurt and though injuries
were sustained on the head, there was no head
injury. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, it is absolutely clear
that no purpose will be served by continuing with
the prosecution especially when the entire disputes
with respondents 2 and 3, the injured, were settled
amicably. As the offences alleged are purely
personal in nature, 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.
Petition is allowed. Crime No.276/2010 of
Munambam Police Station is quashed.
3rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv