IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 2460 OF 2024 CRIME NO.448/2016 OF CHOMBALA POLICE STATION, Kozhikode AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.176 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKARA PETITIONERS:

1 SAMEER AGED 32 YEARS S/O UMMAR, NELLOLI VEEDU AZHIYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673309

2 RAFEEK AGED 40 YEARS S/O UMMAR, THALAKKAL (H) AZHIYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673309

3 IRFAN AGED 33 YEARS S/O MAHAMOOD, NELLOLI VEEDU AZHIYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673309

4 SAJNID AGED 31 YEARS S/O MOIDU, SAJITHA MANZIL AZHIYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673309

5 NAJEEB A.V AGED 43 YEARS S/O MUHAMMAD, BEEBI MANZIL POOZHITHALA P.O MAHI, PIN - 673310 BY ADV K.REEHA KHADER RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 SHAMSUDHEEN C.P AGED 31 YEARS S/O ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT CHILLIPARAMBATH (H), AZHIYUR POST, AZHIYUR VILLAGE, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673309

3 SAIFUDEEN AGED 32 YEARS S/O ALIKUNHU, RESIDING AT VALLUPARAMBATH (H)

AZHIYUR POST, AZHIYUR VILLAGE, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE,, PIN - 673309 BY ADV P.K.SUBHASH OTHER PRESENT:

SMT. SREEJA V. (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No. 2460 of 2024 ----------------------------------------

Dated this the 1st day of April, 2024 ORDER Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash all proceedings against them.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 176 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Vadakara, arsing out of Crime No. 448 of 2016 of Chombala Police Station, Kozhikode, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 294(b) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainant and the injured witness.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had on

04-09-2016, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and after restraining the defacto complainant and the third respondent, assaulted them and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

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

6. 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].

7. I have perused Annexure A2 and Annexure A3 affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant and the other deponent stand 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.

8. Though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 1^st accused is involved in three other crimes, having regard to the nature of offence alleged in this crime as well as the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that no purpose would be achieved by continuing the