Petitioner herein is the original 6th accused in Crime No. 797/2006 of the Kasaragod Police Station. The case against him and the original 2nd accused was split up and re-filed when they absconded from legal process. The other 5 accused in the crime faced trial at two stages and obtained judgment of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143,147,148,323,324,427 and 308 IPC on the complaint of one Jayarajan. He is the 1st respondent in this proceeding. The petitioner now seeks oder under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution against him in S.C. No.
381/2009 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kasaragod, which stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.C.No. 1/2011, on the ground that he and the defacto complainant have amicably settled the whole dispute, and that continuance of prosecution against him will not serve Crl.M.C.. No.6329/2014 2 any purpose. The defacto complainant, Jayarajan has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint now. Annexure-I series judgments will show that the other accused obtained judgment of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. when all the material witnesses including the defacto complainant Jayarajan turned hostile to the prosecution. I find that they did not support the prosecution during trial in view of an amicable settlement made out of court. I am definite that continuance of prosecution against the petitioner will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the parties have come to terms and resolved the whole dispute forever. In so many decisions, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences the High Court can quash the prosecution, if continuance of such prosecution will not serve any purpose.
2. On a perusal of records, I find that Section 308 IPC was, in fact, incorporated in the proceeding by the police on the basis of a purely hypothetical statement. Any way, the parties have Crl.M.C.. No.6329/2014 3 really settled the whole dispute and the complainant has no grievance or complaint now. No doubt, he and the others will not, in any manner, support the prosecution, and the prosecution also cannot, in any manner, improve the case. Thus, it is only appropriate and just that the prosecution be quashed.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The Prosecution as against the petitioner herein in S.C. No. 381/2009 before the Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc)-I, Kasaragod, which now transferred to the long pending register as L.P.C. No. 1/2011, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE