IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 955 of 2010()
1. MUHAMMED SHIBINU (A1),
... Petitioner
2. BASHEER, S/O.JAMAL MUHAMMED (A2),
3. YUSUF KHAN, S/O.MUHAMMED RASHEED (A3),
4. SALIM, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED (A4),
5. SHAHANAZ, S/O.SHANAVAS (A5),
6. SHAN, S/O.MUHAMMED RASHEED (A6),
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SHIBU, S/O.SURENDRAN, (CWI),
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 955 & 959 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 19th day of March,2010
ORDER
Petitioners in Crl.M.C.955/2010 are the
accused in C.C.36/2010. Petitioners in
Crl.M.C.959/2010 are the accused in
C.C.35/2010, both on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Attingal. Second
respondent in Crl.M.C.955/2010 is the first
petitioner in Crl.M.C.959/2010. Respondents 2
and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 are petitioners 1 and
4 in Crl.M.C.955/2010. Both cases are in
respect of the same incident. One is the main
case and the other its countercase.
Prosecution case in Crime 35/2010 is that the
petitioners in Crl.M.C.959/2010 formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly with the
common object of causing hurt to respondents 2
and 3 and in furtherance of the common object,
Crl.M.C.955 & 959 of 2010 2
they committed rioting on 3.3.2009 at 2.30 p.m, on
the front varandha of tea shop PP IV/559 caused
and hurt to second respondent by beating him on his
face and kicking on his leg and also caused hurt to
the third respondent, by beating him and they
thereby committed offences under sections 143, 147,
148, 149, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution case in Crime 36/2010 is that
petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly with the common object of causing hurt to
second respondent and committed rioting on 3.3.2009
at 2.30 p.m at Manjappara junction and caused hurt
on second respondent and thereby committed
offences under sections 143, 147,148,149,294(b),
323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. These petitions
are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the cognizance taken by the
learned Magistrate on the respective final reports
contending that the entire disputes in the main
case and the counter case were amicably settled.
Crl.M.C.955 & 959 of 2010 3 The affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 and the affidavit filed by the second respondent in Crl.M.C.955/2010 show that
they have amicably settled all the disputes with
the respective petitioners and they have no
subsisting grievance against them and therefore
the case is to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and second respondent in
Crl.M.C.955/2010 and petitioners and respondents 2
and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 and the Public Prosecutor
were heard. The affidavits filed by respondents 2
and 3 in Crl.M.C.959/2010 and the affidavit of
second respondent in Crl.M.C.955/2010 establish
that entire disputes with the petitioners were
settled amicably. Final reports taken cognizance
establish that offences alleged against the
respective petitioners are purely personal in
nature as against respondents 2 and 3 in
Crl.M.C.959/2010 and second respondent in
Crl.M.C.955 & 959 of 2010 4
Crl.M.C.955/2010. As held by the Apex Court in
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT
19) when the offences are purely personal in nature
and there is amicable settlement of the disputes
between the parties, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecutions.
Petitions are allowed. C.C.35/2010 and
C.C.36/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court-II, Attingal are quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006