The petitioner is A-1 in C.C.No.239 of 2013 and he has filed the present quash application on the ground that he has arrived at a compromise with the defacto complainant.
2. In the considered opinion of this Court, in a trial where more than one accused are there, this Court cannot interfere and quash the prosecution as against one accused on the ground that he has entered into a compromise with the defacto complainant, as that will adversely affect the evidentiary value of witnesses before the Trial Court. That apart, the provisions of
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code will stand negated. Hence, this petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in C.C.No.239 of 2013 expeditiously and complete the same, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, provided the accused co- operate with the trial by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined in chief, as held by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542.
To
1.The District Munsif -cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.
2.The Inspector of Police, Manavalankuruchi Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.