IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2489 of 2009()
1. JAYENDRAN.P.M.PULLARKATT VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. SUDHESH P.K.PAMPADY VEEDU,CHERAYI.PO,
3. VENU.KATHANAPARAMBUVEETTIL,THANNIPADAM,
4. SREEMON.P.G,VALIYAKULAM VEEDU,PALLIPURAM
5. ROSHIN.V.M.VALIYAKULAM VEEDU,
6. MAHESH.P.S,PONAMMAMCHERRY VEEDU,
7. AJIN P.A.PERUMANA VEEDU,CHERAYI.P.O,
8. SUDHEESH A.N.ALINGAL VEEDU,PALLIPURAM.PO
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... Respondent
2. HARI,S/O.KUNJAN,NIKATHIL VEEDU,NJARACKAL
3. DANISH,S/O.VIJAYAN,PUTHUVELI VEETIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
For Respondent :SMT.C.SEENA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :18/08/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2489 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.705/2008 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,
North Paravur. Prosecution case is that petitioners
formed themselves into unlawful assembly on 1.6.2008 at
about 7 p.m. and in furtherance of their common object,
attacked second respondent Hari and inflicted injury on
him and when third accused intervened, he was also
beaten and hurt was caused to him and thereby
petitioners committed offences under Sections 143, 147,
148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal
Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that
the entire disputes with respondents 2 and 3 were
amicably settled and in such circumstances, it is not,
in the interest of justice, to proceed with the case.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel
and filed separate affidavits stating that all the
disputes with the petitioners were amicably settled and
in such circumstances, they have no objection for
CRMC 2489/09 2
quashing the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
4. Annexure-1 final report shows that the
allegation against the petitioners is that they formed
themselves into unlawful assembly and caused hurt to
third respondent by beating with hands and kicking with
legs and caused hurt to second respondent by hitting
with a stone and thereby committed the alleged
offences. When injuries are minor and the disputes with
the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were amicably
settled, 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 proceed with the case further,
when, consequent to the settlement, chances of a
successful prosecution is very bleak.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.705/2008 on the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, North
Paravur is quashed.
18th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv