ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.16/2013 of Thumba Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram district, which was registered on 25.12.2012 on the basis of the first information statement given by Walter Pereira, the second respondent alleging offence under Sections 341, 323, 355 and 294(b) read with 34 of the IPC. All the four accused in the crime have joined this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The allegation is that on 25.01.2012 at 02:30 p.m, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention attacked and injured the defacto complainant/the second respondent. It is specifically alleged that the first accused had slapped on his face with a foot wear and that the other accused also shared the common intention. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, where the case is pending as C.C.No.128/2016. Now, the petitioners have moved this Court seeking to quash the proceedings on the premise that the matter has been settled with the second respondent.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioners have also produced the affidavit of the second respondent confirming the settlement reached between the parties.

3. The allegations as stated are under Sections 341, 323, 355 and 294(b) read with 34 of the IPC. From the very face of the allegations it is evident that they are minor in nature. It is also evident that it was a private dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the second respondent on the other. Now, the second respondent has condoned the acts of the petitioners and has reached a settlement with the petitioners and does not want to pursue the proceedings. This has been reiterated in the affidavit. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that such a statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer.

4. After all it is a private dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the second respondent on the other. By settling such a minor dispute, public interest is only advanced. There is no legal impediment in approving the settlement. The second respondent himself has stated in unambiguous terms that he does not want to pursue the proceedings. When the parties themselves reach a settlement, the Court need not stand on the way and it is the policy of the Court whenever the parties approach the court with such a settlement, it should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Materials do suggest that the matter has been settled between the parties. In the circumstance, there is no meaning in driving the parties to undergo trial. Therefore, all further proceedings pursuant to the final report in Crime No.16/2013 of Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram shall stand quashed.

Criminal M.C is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE Jms/25.08

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3464/2021 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.16/2013 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT AND PENDING AS CC

128/2016 OF JFCM-I THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Annexure 2 THE NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.