Shanmughan S/o Sankaran, Narayanan alias Ani S/o Late Raghavan, and Soman alias Somasundaran S/o Gangadhar an v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT** **WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2585 of 2008()** **------------------------SC.160/2003 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPPALAM** **....................** ## **PETITIONERS:ACCUSED & THE INJURED/PWs 1 & 2:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SHANMUGHAN, S/O SANKARAN, KALTHU VEEDU, KANDARAMATHUPADY, PALAKKATIRI, NAGALASSERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. NARAYANAN,@ ANI, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, POOKKATTIL HOUSE, NAGALASSERY, PILAKATTIRI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **3. SOMAN @ SOMASUNDARAN, S/O GANGADHARAN, KUTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAGALASSERY, PILAKKATTIRI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT:STATE:** **----------------------------------** **THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERY POLICE STATION -THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** _Kss_ ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.2585 of 2008 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of July 2008 ## **O R D E R** First petitioner is the sole surviving accused in crime No.174/96. In that case, the accused persons - 12 in all face indictment for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 324 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. All the other co-accused have faced trial and have been found not guilty and acquitted under Annexure A under Section 232 Cr.P.C holding that there is no material whatsoever against such co-accused. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the injured persons in this case. They were examined by the court in Annexure A proceedings. They did not support the case of the prosecution. They reported that the matter has been settled between the parties. 2. While acquitting all the co-accused, the learned Sessions Judge in Annexure A had directed that the case against the petitioner herein who was originally arrayed as accused No.6 be split up and proceeded with. Thus proceedings against the 1[st] petitioner herein is continuing to be pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam as S.C.No.160/03. At this stage, the Crl.M.C.No.2585/08 2 petitioners have come before this court to apprise the court of the fact that the parties have settled the disputes willingly and voluntarily. There has been a genuine and honest settlement of disputes between the parties. Disputes arose out of petty political differences and intolerance. But now all the disputes have been settled. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is entitled to get the proceedings against him quashed even otherwise as all the co-accused have already been found not guilty and acquitted. But if this court in the light of the decision in **Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)]** feels that the acquittal of the coaccused is by itself not a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings against the first petitioner, the decision in **Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]** may be taken into consideration and further proceedings may be dropped, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The decision in **Madan Mohan** (Supra) is authority for the proposition that a common sense approach may be necessary while considering the plea for quashing of proceedings in cases where though the offences are non- Crl.M.C.No.2585/08 3 compoundable the court is satisfied that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and that such disputes are personal and private between the parties. In such circumstances without concerning itself with the technicalities of law, the court must choose to tread a course which would avoid wastage of time and resources of the court and the State and make more time available to the courts for attending to more serious type of work which is demanding their attention. **4.** The petitioners - accused and the victims have come together before this court. Petitioners 2 and 3 have filed a common affidavit in support of their assertion that the matter has been settled and they have compounded the offences alleged against the 1[st] petitioner. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, has absolutely no objection against the quashing of the proceedings against the 1[st] petitioner pending before the Assistant Sessions Court. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs I am persuaded to agree that this is an eminently fit case where the Crl.M.C.No.2585/08 4 dictum in **Madan Mohan** (Supra) can and ought to be imported to bring to premature termination this unnecessary and irrelevant surviving prosecution against the 1[st] petitioner. 6. In the result, - a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) Proceedings against the 1[st] petitioner pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ottappalam as S.C.No.160/03 is hereby quashed. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C.No.2585/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.2585/08 6 The petitioners are the accused (1[st] petitioner) and the injured/victims (CWs 1 and 2) in an indictment for offences punishable inter alia under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. The co-accused have already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. In that proceedings itself, it was revealed that the parties have settled their disputes. The petitioners have now settled their disputes. They pray that unnecessary and meaningless further proceedings may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in **Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]** . 2. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor wants time to take instructions. Call on 16/7/2008. Crl.M.C.No.2585/08 7 ## **R.BASANT, J.** CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007