The petitioner in Crl.M.C 6784/14 is the original second accused in Crime No.435/2004 of the Chathannoor Poilice Station, and the petitioner in Crl.M.C 6785/2014 is the third accused in the said crime, registered under Sections 447, 308, 326 and 34 IPC on the complaint of one Noushad, that these petitioners and two others assaulted him and his friend Ansari, and inflicted injuries on their body with weapon with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death. The accused Nos. 1 and 4 faced trial before the learned third Additional Sessions Judge Kollam in S.C No.1238/2006, and obtained a judgment of acquittal under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, when the prosecution failed to procure the presence of the material witnesses, and thus failed to prove the prosecution case. When these two petitioners remained absent consistently during trial, the case against them was split up and refiled. The case against the third accused is now pending as S.C No.156/2014 before the learned third Additional Sessions Judge Kollam. The case against the second accused was transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P No.4/2008 in the court of Session. The said case is Crl. M.C No. 6784 of 2014&Crl. M.C No. 6785 of 2014 2 now pending before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam. These two petitioners now seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground that continuance of prosecution as against them will not serve any purpose in the above situation, and that they and the injured persons have come to terms amicably out of court. The first informant Noushad and the other injured Ansari are the respondents 2 and 3 in these proceedings. They have filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the dispute with the accused, and they have no grievance or complaint now. Of course, it is true that in S.C No. 1238/2006 the accused Nos. 1 and 4 obtained acquittal, when the prosecution failed to produce the material witnesses. But now the material witnesses are before this court with affidavit that they have no grievance or complaint now, and they have settled the whole dispute with the accused including these petitioners. On a perusal of the proceeding, I find that what is at the most attracted on the allegations is the offence under Section 324 IPC. I find nothing definite to attract the offence under Section 308 IPC, and I find that the said offence was incorporated in the proceeding on the basis of some hypothetical statement. Anyway, the parties have now come to terms amicably. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in so many decisions that in such cases where the parties have really come to terms the prosecution can be quashed, if continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here I find that there is a real and genuine settlement between the parties, and so continuance of prosecution Crl. M.C No. 6784 of 2014&Crl. M.C No. 6785 of 2014 3 against the petitioners will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the court, because nobody will support the prosecution, if the case goes to trial. In the result, these two petitions are allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.6784/14 in Crime No. 435/2004 of the Chathannoor Police Station, now pending before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge Kollam as L.P 4 of 2008, and also the prosecution against the petitioner in Crl.M.C 6785/2014 in S.C No. 156/14 before the learned III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the two petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab