ORDER

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.184/2006 of Valapad Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner and two other accused persons alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner along with other accused persons, attempted to stab the defacto complainant with a knife and when he prevented the said attack, he sustained injuries on his left elbow. The incident occurred while the defacto complainant was travelling on a bus. The other accused pushed the defacto complainant of the bus and when he fell down from the bus, the 1st accused stabbed the defacto complainant four times. The other accused persons have also assaulted him and his tooth was broken. Annexure A1 is the First Information Report and Annexure A2 is the Final Report submitted by the Police. Initially, the trial was conducted by the Sessions Court, Thissur as S.C. No. 671/2006 in which the 3rd accused alone has participated. The aforesaid trial resulted in Annexure A3 judgment by which the 3rd accused was acquitted. The trial against the 1st accused was conducted as S.C. No.222/2012 and it culminated in Annexure A4 judgment. In the said judgment also, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the 1st accused. The case against the petitioner has been split up and it is now pending as L.P. No.71/2008 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner for quashing all further proceedings against him.

3. Heard Sri.Vinay Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Smt.Raihanath T.H., learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioner on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure A5 affidavit. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the injured person has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/injured person also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured person has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein.

5. Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioner herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.

6. It is true that the offences alleged include Sections 326 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. As mentioned above, all the other accused persons who were mentioned in the final report have faced trial and consequent to Annexures A3 and A4 judgments both of them were acquitted. On perusal of the observations contained in the said judgments it is discernible that, the occurrence witness who were examined by the prosecution to prove the incident, turned hostile to the prosecution. The aforesaid witnesses have clearly stated that they did not witness the incident which is the subject matter of prosecution. However, it is true that in both the aforesaid trials, the victim was not examined as the prosecution could no