ORDER :

A.Badharudeen, J.

The petitioner in the above Crl.M.Cs is the sole accused in Crime No.280 of 2022 of Thirurangadi Police Station, where he alleged to have committed offences under Sections 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC' for convenience) as well as under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the `SC/ST Act' for short). Crl.M.C No.684 of 2022 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C' for short) to quash Annexure 2 order dated 20.09.2022 rejecting release of car bearing Registration No.KL 65 P 0790 involved in the above crime.

2. Crl.M.C.No.5431 of 2022 has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the prayer therein is to quash Annexure 1 FIR (in crime No.280/2022 of Thirurangadi Police Station) and all further proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent acting on the affidavit, filed as Annexure 4 in this case.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Advocate Rassal Janardhanan appeared for the 2nd respondent.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been settled in between the defacto complainant and the accused. In order to substantiate the settlement, the learned counsel placed affidavit produced as Annexure 4, sworn by Vineesh, S/o.Unni, the defacto complainant/injured in this case. In the affidavit it has been stated that except the act of assault by accused, the other averments recorded by the police are not completely true. Further, the defacto complainant did not hear calling his caste name, as alleged in his statement. It has been submitted that the defacto complainant had no objection in accepting the affidavit for the purpose of quashing the proceedings.

5. The relevant paragraphs in the affidavit are as under:

"4. I respectfully swear before this Hon'ble Court that except the act of assault by the accused the other averments recorded by the police are not completely true. In fact I have not heard the accused calling me by caste name. My friends who were present nearby the scene of occurrence told me that he had uttered some abusive words which he presumes as my caste name. Because of the pressure exerted on me by my friends and relatives I was constrained to give a statement against the accused before police.

5. Even though I have sustained two injuries on both sides of my body, none of the injury was serious. After about four days I was discharged from the hospital. I have recovered from the injury thereafter and is now attending my regular job.

9. The accused is known to me from the glimmering of my senses. Because of the incident the local respectable persons and upon their intervention we both participated in the meeting and decided to settle the issues that lead to the incident. I have no grievance against the accused. I am not intending to prosecute the above case further."

6. Cursory glimpse on the recitals in the affidavit also would suggest that the defacto complainant reiterates the assault, consequential injuries and his treatment for the same as inpatient. The defacto complainant did not state those allegations as false. As far as the seriousness of the injury, the treatment records and opinion of the Doctor/Doctors are decisive.

7. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for quashment of Annexure 1 F.I.R and further proceedings as also release of the vehicle involved in the above