ABDUL SAMAD @ SAMAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the first accused in Crime No.713/2009 of Ottapalam Police Station and the sole accused in C.C No. 261/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement and also on the basis of the acquittal of the other accused persons under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was implicated as first accused in Crime No. 713/2009 of Ottapalam Police Station along with others alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as de facto complainant and after investigation final report was filed and it was originally taken on file as C.C 935/2009. Another crime was also registered in respect of the same incident on the basis of the statement given by the present petitioner against the de facto complainant and others and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C 933/2009 and that case was disposed of on the basis of settlement which was mentioned in Annexure -A7 judgment. The present petitioner could not appear and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in C.C 935/2009 appeared and faced trial and that was ended in acquittal as per Annexure -A7 judgment. The case against the present petitioner was refiled as C.C No.261/2012. He had enforced appearance and released on bail. Now, the matter between the petitioner and the de facto complainant are also settled. Since some of the offences are non -compoundable in nature, they could not file an application before the court below for recording compounding. In view of the settlement and also acquittal of other accused persons, no purpose will be served by proceeding of the case as well. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose would be served in keeping the case. So he prayed for allowing the application.