The petitioner herein is the original 2nd accused in S.C.No.305/2002 of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143,147,148,149,153(A),395,436 and 427 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act. The other accused in the case faced trial before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, and obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 232(1) Cr.P.C. on 04.03.2005, when all the material witnesses turned fully hostile to the prosecution in view of an amicable settlement arrived at by the parties out of court. In the said case, the trial court even dispensed with the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. because, none of the witnesses stated anything to incriminate any of the accused. The case against the petitioner was split up and refiled, and when he remained consistently absent throughout the proceeding, and it is Crl.M.C.. No. 3969/2014 2 now pending as S.C. No. 380/2013 before the same court, the petitioner now seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the prosecution as against him, on the ground that continuance of prosecution against his will not serve any purpose. Annexure- 2 judgment in S.C. No. 305/2002 shows that the learned trial Judge acquitted the other accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C. when none of the material witnesses, in any manner supported the prosecution. However, the case against the petitioner herein happened to be split up when he absconded. The judgment shows that the material witnesses in fact turned hostile to the prosecution in view of an amicable settlement made by the parties out of court, though many of the offences are not compoundable under the law. No doubt, the prosecution cannot, in any manner, improve the case as against the petitioner herein, and none of the material witnesses, can in any manner support the prosecution, if the case against the petitioner goes to trial. In short, continuance of prosecution will practically be waste of time. In so many decisions, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the Crl.M.C.. No. 3969/2014 3 High Court can act under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the prosecution, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, or it will cause harm and hardship to the parties. I am well satisfied that there is a real and genuine settlement between the parties, and that continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the court. Applying the guidelines made by the Honourable Supreme Court, the prosecution as against the petitioner herein can be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner in S.C. No. 380/2013 before the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioner will stand discharged.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE