The petitioner herein is the original fifth accused in Crime No.281/2003 of the Nadapuram Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 308 r/w 149 of IPC on the complaint of one Rashid. Four among the many accused initially faced trial before the court of Session, Kozhikode in S.C No.621/2008. In the said case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, and also marked Exts. P1 to P7 documents, and MO1 to MO4 properties. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vadakara found those four accused not guilty on merits, and accordingly acquitted them by judgment dated 12.3.2009. Thereafter, the case against two other accused also ended in acquittal, when the material witnesses turned hostile during trial, in view of an amicable settlement made out of court. The case against the petitioner was split up, when he consistently remained absent during trial. It was much later committed, and now it is pending as S.C No.422/2013 in the court below. The fifth accused now seeks orders quashing the prosecution as against him on the ground that he and the Crl. M.C No. 1232 of 2014 2 complainant have come to terms amicably, and also on the ground that the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case as against him, when the very substratum of the prosecution case stands lost. Copy of the judgment in SC. 621/2005 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vadakara is available as part of records. This shows that the learned trial judge did not believe any of the witnesses, and on the finding that the evidence given by the witnesses including the de facto complainant Rashid is quiet unsatisfactory and unacceptable the learned trial judge acquitted the four accused. The de facto complainant Rashid is the first respondent herein. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with all the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint. Two accused obtained a judgment of acquittal at the 2nd round, when all the witnesses including Rashid turned hostile, in view of an amicable settlement. I am well satisfied that the parties have really come to terms. It is submitted by the prosecution that the State has not preferred appeal against the judgment of acquittal in S.C No.621/2005 in favour of four among the accused. A perusal of the judgment shows that the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case as against the petitioner herein. I also find that the witnesses including the Crl. M.C No. 1232 of 2014 3 complainant cannot, and will not, in any manner support the prosecution, if the case goes to trial. Practically, continuance of prosecution against him, in the present circumstances, will be a sheer waste of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in so many decisions that in such circumstances, where the parties have really come to terms, or where continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, the High Court can quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Here I find such a situation. In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner in S.C No.422/2013 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vadakara will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he will stand released from such prosecution.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab