The petitioners herein are the original accused numbers 4 and 5 in crime No. 293/2011 of the Manjeri Police Station in Malappuram district. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 IPC, on the complaint of one Sunil Babu who is the second respondent in this proceeding. Cognizance on the final report submitted by the police was taken in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri as C.C 166/2011. The original accused numbers 1 to 3 faced trial in the court below in C.C 166/2011, and obtained a judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2013 when all the material witnesses including the injured defacto complainant turned hostile in view of the settlement arrived at out of court. When all the material witnesses turned hostile the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the remaining witnesses. As composition is not possible under the law, the witness probably did not support the prosecution. Now the accused numbers 4 and 5 seek orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashing the prosecution on the ground that they and the injured Crl. M.C No. 5920 of 2014 2 persons have come to amicable settlement out of court, and that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the prosecution when the material witnesses would not in any manner support the prosecution. 2. Annexure C judgment of the trial court in C.C 166/11 shows that the accused numbers 1 to 3 were acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C by the trial court when all the material witnesses including the injured witness turned hostile. The case against the petitioners herein was split up and refiled as C.C 354/2013 while disposing of C.C 166/2011. The second respondent has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the petitioners, and that he has no grievance or complaint. In so many decisions, 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 dispute which does not involve any public interest or public issue. I am definite that the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case as against the petitioners herein if at all C.C 354/13 goes to trial. It is definite that none of the material witnesses including the injured person would support the prosecution. In Crl. M.C No. 5920 of 2014 3 such a situation continuance of prosecution against these petitioners will be a sheer waste of time.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioners in C.C 354/2013 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the petitioners will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab