The petitioners herein are the accused numbers 4 and 7 in crime Number 109/2007 of Hosdurg Police Station. Of the 7 accused in the case, the other 5 accused faced trial before the learned Magistrate in C.C 825/2007, and obtained a judgment of aquittal dated 11.12.2008. Crime in the case was registered on the complaint of one Ramees that he was assualted by these petitioners and the other accused as part of a criminal design made by them, and in the said incident he sustained some simple injuries. In C.C No.825 of 2007 against the other 5 accused, the learned Magistrate framed charge agaisnt them under Section 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with section 149 of IPC. Though the parties came to terms during trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses during trial, and marked Ext. P1 complaint in C.C No.825 of 2007. None of the material witnesses including the injured Ramees supported the prosecution. The eye witnesses examined by the prosecution stated that they had not in fact witnessed in the alleged incident. The injured Ramees stated before the learned Magistrate during trial that he was assulated by somebody, but he could not identify the assailants. He also stated that he happendened to prefer the Ext.P1 complaint on some Crl. M.C No. 5590 of 2014 2 misapprehnesion. In such a situation, the learned Magistrate dispensed with the examination of the remaining witnesses, and aquitted the other accused under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Now the original accused numbers 4 and 7, whose case was split up as C.C No.1557/2008, and later transferred to the case of long pending cases as LPC number 37/2010, are before this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the prosecution as agianst them on the ground that continuance of prosectuion will not serve any purpose when the others stand aquitted, and the material witnesses would not in any manner supported the prosecution. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and on a perusal of the copy of the judgment of the trial court in C.C 825/2007, I find that the parties have really settled the dispute, and in such a circumstance the material witnesses turned hostile during trial. There is no doubt that the injured cannot improve the case, or the prosecution cannot improve the case when it proceeds against these petitioners. In C.C No.825 of 2007, the injured person gave evidence that he happened to prefer the complaint on a misapprehension, and that he had not identified any of the assailants who assaulted him, and inflicted injuries on his body. No doubt, he gave such a statement in view of the settlement arrived at out of court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in so many decisions that in such circumstances, where parties have come to Crl. M.C No. 5590 of 2014 3 terms, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose the prosecution can well be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners in C.C No.1557/08, which stands transferred to the case of long pending cases as LPC 37/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Hosdurg will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the petitioners will stand released from prosecution.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE