IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1129 of 2010()
1. VIJESH, S/O.PACHAVIJAYAN, AGED 28,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF
... Respondent
2. K.C.THILAKAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 35,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent :SMT.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :08/04/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.1129 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 8th April 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner was the seventh accused
in C.P.52/2001 on the file of Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba. Case
against the petitioner and fourth accused
was split up and the case as against other
accused were committed to the Sessions
court and taken on file as S.C.89/2003. By
Annexure A4 judgment, those accused were
acquitted by the Sessions Judge. Case as
against the petitioner is now pending as
C.P.23/2002 before Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Taliparamba. Petition is filed
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the proceedings pending
before the learned Magistrate against him
Crmc 1129/10 2
contending that consequent to the order of
acquittal as against the co-accused and the
settlement arrived at with second respondent,
it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution.
2. Second respondent appeared through
a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that
entire disputes with the petitioner were
settled and hence the case as against the
petitioner is to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, second respondent and learned
Public Prosecutor were heard.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that Annexure A4 judgment
itself shows that when the co-accused were
tried, there was a settlement between the
second respondent and the other witnesses and
none of them supported the prosecution case and
Crmc 1129/10 3
the affidavit filed by the second respondent
establishes that even if petitioner is to be
tried, there is no likelihood of a successful
prosecution as second respondent has no
subsisting grievance against the petitioner. It
is therefore, submitted that the case is to be
quashed.
5. Offences alleged against the
petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 342, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of
Indian Penal Code, apart from Section 3(2)(v)
of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As held by the
Apex court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4)
KLT 417 (SC)) consequent to the settlement of
the disputes between the parties, all offences
cannot be quashed. Section 307 of Indian Penal
Code is one such offence. It is not an offence
purely personal in nature as against the second
Crmc 1129/10 4
respondent. Hence the case cannot be quashed as
sought for. If there is no evidence against the
petitioner, learned Sessions Judge may only
acquit him. Hence the case cannot be quashed.
6. Learned counsel submitted that in
that event direction may be issued to the
learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on
bail. When an accused surrenders and files an
application for bail, Magistrate is expected
to pass orders in the application without
delay. I find no reason to believe that the
Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law
or the decisions of this court or the Apex
court or that the Magistrate will not act in
accordance with law. In such circumstances, no
direction is warranted.
Petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
Crmc 1129/10 5 uj.