The petitioner herein is the third accused in C.C No.6527 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Ernakulam. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Unni, that the accused Nos.1 and 2 and eight other identifiable persons assaulted him and inflicted injuries on his body. After investigation, the police submitted final report against four accused under Section 323 and 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the said final report is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 inflicted injuries on the body of the de facto complainant Unni with weapon, and when he fell down, the accused Nos.3 and 4, along with others, (A1 and A2) assaulted him. Now the third accused seeks orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the prosecution as against him on the ground that he and the de facto complainant have come to terms amicably out of court. It is submitted that in view of the good prospects for job abroad, the third accused approached the de facto complainant, and on the intervention of others, they amicably settled the dispute, but the complainant wants to proceed against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. Of course, it is true that the complainant can choose one or the other accused. However, the court's concern is whether orders quashing the prosecution as against one will in any manner affect the pending prosecution against the others. Here, I find that in the First Information Statement, the definite allegations of the de facto complainant are only against accused Nos.1 and 2. Of course, he has stated that there were some other identifiable persons also, but the statement does not contain anything to identify those persons. It is not known how the petitioner herein was identified as accused during investigation. This is a simple case of assault involving more persons than one, but below five. If the alleged assault and also the alleged common intention between the other three accused are proved by the prosecution, the prosecution can well succeed, and in such a situation orders in favour of the third accused will not affect the prosecution. Thus, I find that orders passed in favour of the third accused will not affect the prosecution as against the others, and so the settlement made between him and the de facto complainant can well be accepted by the court. Orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are sought because composition as such is not now possible under the law. Anyway, the parties have really settled the whole dispute. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such cases where continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, or such continuance will cause harm and hardship to the parties, who have really and genuinely come to terms, the court can quash prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioner herein as the third accused in C.C No.6527 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Ernakulam will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any executed by him will stand discharged.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge