~~~~~~~ The petitioners herein are the original accused Nos. 4, 6 and 9 in S.C.No.106/2003 before the Court of Session, Palakkad Division. The other eight accused faced trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ottappalam and obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. On 25.8.2008, when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution in view of an amicable settlement made by the parties out of court. The case against the petitioners herein was split up and refiled, when they consistently remained absent, and it was later transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.144/2003. As the petitioners were employed at distant places for years coercive steps in the L.P. matter proceeded. Now the petitioners seek orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution, on the ground that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose. 2. Annexure-A16 judgment in S.C.No.106/2003 shows that, in the main case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses Crl.M.C.No.5837/2014 2 including the persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident, and also marked Exts.P1 to P6. None of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution supported the prosecution, in any manner. When cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, it could be brought out that the parties have come to settlement out of court, and it was accordingly, the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution during trial. I am definite that, in such a situation, continuance of prosecution as against the petitioners will not serve any purpose. No doubt, nobody will, in any manner, support the prosecution, and the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case, if it goes to trial. I find that the substratum of the case stands lost. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in so many decisions that even in cases involving non- compoundable offences, where the court finds amicable settlement between the parties, or that continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of court, the High Court can quash prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Here I find such a situation of amicable settlement between the parties. Of course, orders are Crl.M.C.No.5837/2014 3 sought not on the ground of settlement, but on the ground that the others stand acquitted, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. I find that continuance of prosecution against the petitioners will be a sheer waste of time in the present situation.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners in committal proceedings before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi, now pending as L.P 144/2003, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution.
Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE.
ps/18/11/2014 //True copy// PA to Judge