The petitioner herein is the original second accused in crime No. 400/2009 of the Keezhvaipur Police Station, registered under Sections 114 and 308 IPC, on the complaint of one Niyas. The case against the other three accused was first committed to the court of Session. They faced trial before the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in S.C 375/2011, and obtained a judgment of acquittal when all the material witnesses including the first informant (de facto complainant) turned fully hostile to the prosecution, in view of an amicable settlement made by the parties out of court. The case against the petitioner herein was split up in the committal court itself when he absconded, and it is now pending as C.P 126/2010 before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. The petitioner now seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashing the prosecution on the ground that continuance of prosecution as against him in the present circumstances will not serve any purpose. It is submitted that the case now stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as Crl. M.C No. 6515 of 2014 2 LP 123/2012. A perusal of the Annexure A1 judgment shows that the learned trial Judge acquitted the other accused in S.C 375/2011, when none of the witnesses supported the prosecution. It is seen that even examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with by the learned trial Judge. The judgment shows that none of the material witnesses gave any evidence implicating any of the accused including the petitioner herein, during trial in S.C 375/2011. The judgment further shows that the material witnesses turned hostile during trial, in view of an amicable settlement made out of court. In such a factual situation, I find that continuance of the prosecution as against the petitioner herein will be a sheer waste of time. No doubt, the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case as against the petitioner herein, and none of the material witnesses will in manner support the prosecution, when the dispute practically stands settled amicably out of court. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such cases where continuance of proceeding will not serve any purpose, or will be a sheer waste of time, due to settlement or otherwise, the High Court can quash prosecution under section 482 Cr.P.C. Here I find such a situation, where there is settlement between the parties, and I further find that continuance of proceeding against the Crl. M.C No. 6515 of 2014 3 petitioner herein will not serve any purpose. In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioner herein in C.P 126/2010 (will stand transferred to the register of long pending case as L.P 123/2012) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he will stand released from such prosecution.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab