The petitioner herein is one among the twenty five accused in crime No. 119/2004 of the Mukkam Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 450 IPC. On the final report submitted by the police under the above Sections, cognizance was taken in the Court of Session, Kozhikode as S.C. No. 42/2007. The petitioner herein was arraigned as accused No. 14 in the said case. Pending the proceedings, the original 17th accused died, and thus the charge against him abated. The others except the petitioner herein faced trial in S.C.No. 42/2007 before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode and obtained a judgment of acquittal when all the material witnesses turned fully hostile to the prosecution in view of an amicable settlement arrived at out of court. As composition as such was not possible under the law, the learned trial judge directed the prosecution to examine the witnesses. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C.. No. 4964/2014 2 prosecution examined 13 witnesses in S.C.No. 42/2007 including the injured persons, except the first witness cited by the prosecution as the first injured. None of the material witnesses supported the prosecution in the said trial in view of the amicable settlement made out of court. Witness No.11 cited by the prosecution died pending the proceeding. In the absence of any incriminating materials, the other accused were acquitted by the learned trial judge under Section 232 Cr.P.C. by judgment dated 20.12.2012 in SC No. 42/2007. When the petitioner herein remained consistently absent during trial, his case was split up and refiled as SC No. 805/2012. Now, he has come before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the prosecution against him in S.C. No. 805/2012 pending before the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, on the ground that he and all the injured persons have amicably settled the whole dispute out of court, and also on the ground that all the other accused stand acquitted on trial. 2. Crime in the case was registered on the complaint of one Muhammed, S/o. Kammutty. The prosecution case is that the petitioner herein and the other co-accused assaulted the said Muhammed and his friends, eleven in number, as part of a Crl.M.C.. No. 4964/2014 3 criminal design made by them to attack their political opponents, and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on their body in an attempt on their life. The persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident are the respondents 3 to 13 in this proceeding. They have filed affidavit to the effect that they have amicably settled the whole dispute with the petitioner herein also, and that they have no grievance or complaint. In Gian Sing Vs. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Anothr [2014(2) KLJ 252] and other decisions, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can act under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the prosecution, if the parties have really settled whole dispute amicably, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. Annexure-A judgment produced in this proceeding shows that all the other accused, except the one who died pending the proceeding, obtained order of acquittal from the trial court when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution in view of the settlement made out of court. None of the material witnesses stated anything during trial to incriminate any person, and when cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor Crl.M.C.. No. 4964/2014 4 everybody stated about the amicable settlement made out of court. In such a situation, I find that it will be really waste of time to proceed with the prosecution against petitioner herein. I am well satisfied that the parties have really settled the whole dispute, which does not involve any public interest or public issue. The dispute is purely personal, and the parties have come to terms on the intervention of acceptable persons. In such a situation, continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the court. I find that, applying decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and the guidelines made by the Honourable Supreme Court, this prosecution can be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in S.C.No. 805/2012 before the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner will stand released from prosecution.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE