The petitioner herein is the original 9th accused in crime No.159 of 2010 of the Tanur Police Station. On the final report submitted by the police in the said crime, congnizance was taken in the court of Session Manjeri as S.C 443/2010 against nine accused. The case against the petitioner herein was not committed at that time. The nine accused in C.C No.443/10 faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Manjeri, and obtained a judgment of acquittal on 22.9.2014, when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution in view of an amicable settlement arived at out of court. 2. Annexure III is the copy of the judgment in S.C No.443/2010.
The case against the petiitoner herein was later committed, and it is now pending as S.C 550/2013 before the same court. He seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing the prosecution on the ground that nobody will support the prosecution in view of the compromise arrived at out of court, and that continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose.
3. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the case records I find that continuance of prosecuiton as against the petitioner herein in the present circumstances will be a sheer waste of time. In S.C 443/2010 Crl. M.C No. 6013 of 2014 2 against the other nine acccused, all the material witnesses turned against the prosecution, and nobody supported the prosecution. Even the witness who sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident turned hostile in view of the settlement arrived at out court. The offences involved are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 and 427 IPC. I find that none of the material witnesses will support the prosecution in case, the case against the petiitoner herein goes to trial. No doubt, such a trial will be a sheer waste of time. In so many decisions inclding Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] and Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another [2014 (2) KLJ 252], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. In this case there are two grounds to close the proecution. One is that all the other accused stand acquitted by the trial court when the material witnesses turned hostile. The other ground is that the parties have really settled the whole dispute out of court. I find that the prosecution as against the petiitoenr herein can be closed, because continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the trial court.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioner herein in SC 550/2013 of the thrid Additional Sessions Crl. M.C No. 6013 of 2014 3 Court, Manjeri will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the peititoner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab