The petitioner herein is the original accused No.4 in Crime No.645/2009 of the Hosdurg Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused in the crime faced trial at two stages before the trial court and obtained judgment of acquittal 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 petitioner was split up in the committal court when he absconded during the process. Now it stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P No.49/2011. He now seeks orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the prosecution on the ground that substratum of the prosecution case stands totally lost by acquittal of all the other accused in the absence of any evidence or material, and that he and the complainant have in fact settled the dispute amicably out of court. Annexure 3 judgment in S.C No.286/2012 of the learned Additional Session Judge (Adhoc III), Kasaragod shows that three of the accused obtained a judgment Crl.M.C No.6037 of 2014 2 of acquittal under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19.4.2012 when nobody supported the prosecution, and the Annexure A4 judgment in S.C No.286/2012 shows that another accused also obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when nobody supported the prosecution. These two judgments will show that during trial at two different stages the prosecution examined the material witnesses including the defacto complainant Sunil, but they did not in any manner support the prosecution. The defacto complainant Sunil is the 2nd respondent in this proceeding. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused including the petitioner herein, and that he has no complaint or grievance now.
2. On a perusal of the Annexures 3 and 4 judgments I find that 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. The very substratum of the prosecution case is totally lost. In such a situation continuance of prosecution will be a sheer waste of time. Moreover, the parties have come to terms amicably, and nobody has any grievance or complaint.
3. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable Crl.M.C No.6037 of 2014 3 offences, the High Court can quash prosecution, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably. I am well satisfied that there is a real and genuine settlement between the parties, and in view of the settlement all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution at the earlier stage. I find that continuance of prosecution as against the petitioner herein will not serve any purpose.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in C.P No.176/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Hosdurg which now stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P No.49/2011 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.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab