O R D E R

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.233 of 2011 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 395 of IPC. The aforesaid case is now pending as S.C.No.364 of 2015 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Palakkad.

2. The prosecution case is that, the 7th accused hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other accused to commit robbery of Anand Jewellery belonging to the 2nd respondent and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, the accused together reached the house of the 2nd respondent on 30.04.2011 at 8.30 pm. When the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant reached in front of his house on a scooter, Accused No.4 splashed chilly powder on the face of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and other accused attacked him with weapons and caused injuries to him. During the course of said attack the 2nd accused robbed the bag which the de facto complainant was holding and took away 8 kgs of silver ornaments and 20 grams of gold ornaments. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and A2 is the final report submitted by the police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

3. Heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the Sate and Sri.Devan N.R, 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-5 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. On going through the materials, it is discernible that the offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious in nature. Under normal circumstances, the aforesaid offence cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement alone. However, in this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Annexure-3 Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.235 of 2012, which arises from the very same crime against the other accused. In the trial of the said case, all the other accused persons who faced trial were acquitted. I have also perused the records and the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in Annexure-3 Judgment.

6. It is discernible from the records that, the 2nd respondent herein was examined as PW2 and even though he deposed about the incident, in the manner as claimed by the prosecution, he categorically stated that he could not identify any of the assailants. PW3 to PW5, who are other occurrence witnesses examined to support the prosecution, have also stated that, they could not identify any of the assailants. Thus, on going through the nature of evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution and also the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.235 of 2012 as against the other accused persons, it can be seen that, the substratum of the case itself is lost. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue against the petitioner. Therefore, besides the fact of settlement, this is a fit case in which principles laid down by this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552] can be applied. As per the principles laid down in the said judgment, when the substratum of the case itself is destroyed, consequent to the acquittal of the co-accused, powers of this Court can be invoked for quashing the proceedings against th