The petitioner herein is the sixth accused in C.C No.138/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Payyannur. Crime in the said case was registered on the complaint of one Sudip James, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC. The prosecution case is that the petitioner herein and the other co-accused assaulted the said Sudip James and his friends Sanoop, Vinu Thomas and Sarath Mohan, and inflicted injuries on their body with weapons. Trial in C.C No.138/2 is now pending. The prosecution has already examined the material witnesses except the first informant. The petitioner now seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashing the prosecution as against him on the ground that he and the injured persons have settled the dispute amicably out of court. The case as against the third accused stands quashed by this court as per order dated 10.11.2014 in Crl.M.C 5909/2014. It is reported that the first informant has not so far turned up for examination in spite of coercive steps taken by the Crl. M.C No. 5783 of 2014 2 court. The report submitted by the learned Magistrate shows that the other three injured persons examined as PW1 to PW3 did not in any manner support the prosecution. In this proceeding all the four injured persons are parties as respondents. They have filed affidavit to the effect that they have no grievance or complaint, and that the whole dispute as against the petitioner herein stands settled. Even the first informant who did not turn up for examination during trial has filed affidavit here that he has no grievance or complaint now. The petitioner now seeks orders on the ground that continuance of prosecution as against him will cause harm and hardship to him, and it will also cause loss of employment to him, when he is already in the list of Police Constable prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The other accused probably did not come under Section 482 Cr.P.C, because they are confident that they will get acquittal, when nobody has supported the prosecution. The petitioner herein seeks early orders, because if trial is delay, he will lose the employment. I find that his grievance is genuine, and I also find that there is a real settlement between him and the injured persons including the first informant. In the particular facts and circumstances where all the material witnesses turned hostile during trial, orders passed in favour of the petitioner herein will not affect Crl. M.C No. 5783 of 2014 3 the trial as against the others. In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioner herein in C.C No.138/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Payyannur will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab