K P NASER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed by one K.P.Nazar, to quash proceedings against him in C.C.Nos.673 of 2005, 787 of 2005, 705 of 2005 and 877 of 2005, all pending in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi. Those cases arose from Crime No.216 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427 and 506(i) read with Section 149; Crime No.214 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 149; Crime No.215 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 and Crime No.217 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Code"), all of Tanur Police Station. Prosecution Case is that on the respective dates petitioner and others formed unlawful assembly, trespassed into the compound of the defacto complainants and committed offences as stated above. Petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.216 of 2005 and accused No.5 in Crime Nos.214 and 215 of 2005. He is accused No.2 in Crime No.217 of 2005. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against him on the strength of settlement reached with the defacto complainants and injured. It is stated that cases were referred to the Adalath and settled there. Since petitioner was not available for trial along with other accused, cases against him were refiled as C.C.Nos.966 of 2008, 964 of 2008, 965 of 2008 and 967 of 2008. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, the defacto complainants and injured and the leaned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) IT is seen from Annexures-A3, A4, A5 and A3, respectively in these petitions that cases against the remaining accused ended in acquittal under Sections 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the witnesses did not support the prosecution in view of the settlement reached between the parties. IT is also seen from the records that the cases were sent to the Adalath and settled . But, since offences included non-compoundable offences the cases were sent back to the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi. The defacto complainants and the injured have filed affidavits stating that the dispute has been settled between petitioner, defacto complainants and the injured and that they did not intend to continue prosecution. In the light of the settlement reached between the parties I am inclined to allow these petitions. Resultantly these petitions are allowed in the following lines: