O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused, Nos.1 to 3, in Crime No.819 of 2018 of Peramangalam Police Station, which is now pending as S.C.No.286 of 2019 on the file of the Addl. Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur. Offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 332, 353, and 308, read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP)

Act.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 21.08.2018 at 8.30 P.M, the accused persons obstructed the KSRTC bus driven by the 2nd respondent, alleging that the said bus hit the scooter driven by the 1st accused and sped away without stopping. Thereafter, the de facto complainant was assaulted with an iron pipe, causing injuries to him. It is alleged that in the said incident, the bus also sustained some damages to the tune of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only). It is also alleged that, on account of the damage sustained to the vehicle, it could not ply for three days and the loss estimated on this account was Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only). Annexure-1 is the FIR and Annexure-2 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to it.

3. Heard Sri.E.Vijin Karthik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hritwhik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.R.Rohith, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-3 affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine.

5. One of the main allegations based on which the crime is registered is that the petitioners have caused damages to the KSRTC bus to the tune of Rs 1,000/- and caused loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) in the income which ought to have been derived from the said bus for the next three days. It is reported that, at the time of releasing the petitioners on bail, all of them had deposited an amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only) each before the trial court. As far as the offences under the provisions of 341, 332, 353, and 308 are concerned, the matter can be quashed based on the settlement between the parties. But as far as the offence under the Provisions of the PDPP Act is concerned, the same cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties under normal circumstances. In this case, some indulgence can be shown by taking note that the total loss sustained by the KSRTC is reportedly compensated by depositing the said amount before the court below. While going through the materials, I find that the whole incident arose from a dispute between the petitioners and the driver of the KSRTC, the de facto complainant herein. The KSRTC bus allegedly hit the scooter ridden by the 1st petitioner. On carefully scrutinizing the materials placed on record, I am unable to find any pre-meditated attack on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is evident that the incident occurred under the heat of passion. In such circumstances, taking note of the relevant inputs, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to quash the proceedings, including the prosecution for the offences under Section 3(2) of the PDPP Act. In the light of the view I have taken, it is ordered that the amount already deposited by the petitioners at the time of granting bail can be ad