Rashid vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against him.

Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No.128/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara, arising out of Crime No.407/2011 of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode district; registered for the offences under Sections 143,147, 148, 341, 323, 326, 427, 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The second respondent is the de facto complainant.

According to the prosecution, on 21.08.2011 the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed the offence of rioting on the public road, and after wrongfully restraining the de facto complainant, assaulted him with dangerous weapons with the intention to cause death, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

The  case  against  the  petitioner  was  split  up  and  has  been renumbered as S.C. No.128/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara. Originally, there were nine accused in the above crime. Petitioner herein was originally arrayed as the 4th accused, and in the trial, accused Nos.6, 8 and 9 were acquitted, while the case against the first accused was quashed by this court as per Annexure-A3 judgment.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466]  and  Yogendra  Yadav  and  Others  v.  State  of  Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

I have perused Annexure-A5 affidavit filed by the second respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the de facto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No.128/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara, are quashed.

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.