The petitioner herein is the original second accused in crime No.181/2003 of the Payyannur Police station. Cognizance on the final report was originally taken as SC 592/2004 in the court of Session, Thalassery. The original first accused faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Payyannur, and obtained a judgment of acquittal when the material witnesses turned fully hostile to the prosecution. Crime in the said case was registered under Section 307 IPC on the complaint of one Khalid. During trial in SC 592/04, the prosecution could not secure the presence of the defacto complainant Khalid. However the prosecution examined all the other material witnesses cited as eye witnesses. None of them supported the prosecution, in view of the settlement arrived at out of court. Now the second accused whose case was split up, and refiled as SC. 342/09 in the court below has approached this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to have the prosecution against him to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C, on the ground that he and the defacto complainant have amicably settled the whole dispute, and that the complainant has no grievance or complaint Crl. M.C No. 3918 of 2014 2
now.
2. Annexure A III copy of the judgment in SC 592/2004 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Payyannur shows that the original first accused stands acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Of course, it is true that the defacto complainant was not examined in the said case, but the other material witnesses turned fully hostile to the prosecution. In spite of repeated opportunities granted from the court, the prosecution could not procure the presence of the defacto complainant Khalid. Anyway, the said Khalid has now settled the whole dispute with the second accused.
3. In so many decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences, the High Court can act under Section 482 Cr.P., and quash prosecution if the parties have really settled the dispute. In this case, I find that the first information statement given by the defacto complainant does not contain any allegation against the petitioner herein. Everything stated and alleged by him in the FI statement is in fact against the first accused Rajagopalan who stands acquitted on trial. It is not known how the petitioner herein happened to be arraigned as second accused in the crime. On this ground also he is entitled to get orders quashing the prosecution. The defacto complainant Khalid who sustained injuries in the alleged incident is the first respondent herein. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has
Crl. M.C No. 3918 of 2014 3
no grievance or complaint against the petitioner herein, and that the whole dispute stands settled. As observed above, I find that the complainant has not in fact made any allegation against the petitioner herein in the FI statement. Anyway, the matter stands amicably settled, and I find that continuance of prosecution as against the petitioner herein in the split up case will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the trial court.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in S.C 342/2009 of the Court of Session Thalassery, now pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Payyannur will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab