M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.@mdashPetitioner was the second accused in S.C. No. 204/2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Thiruvananthapuram. As he was absconding, case against him was split up and refiled. The remaining five accused were tried. By Annexure-II judgment, those accused were acquitted.
2. The case against the Petitioner is now pending as L.P. No. 5/2004. This petition is filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that in view of the order of acquittal against the co-accused and settlement of the entire disputes with Respondents 2 and 3, the defacto complainant and the injured, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that CRMC 4454/10 2 they have settled the entire disputes with the Petitioner and they have no subsisting grievance against the Petitioner and therefore, they have no objection for quashing the proceedings.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
5. Annexure-I final report with Annexure-II judgment in S.C. No. 204/2001 show that prosecution case is that on 11.10.1999 at about 7 p.m., the six accused reached Nash Fast Food conducted by second Respondent and after taking tea when they attempted to go without paying the price, second Respondent obstructed their illegal act and directed that they can leave only after payment. They conjointly committed the offence of robbery and destroyed the articles of the shop and committed a loss to the tune of Rs. 17,000/- to the second Respondent. It is also alleged that second Respondent was beaten with soda bottles at that time and hurt was caused to the third Respondent also by hitting him with a bottle on his face and stomach and all the accused thereby committed the offence u/s 397 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-II judgment shows that out of the six accused, except the Petitioner, all were acquitted.
6. Affidavits filed by Respondents 2 and 3 establish that they have settled all the disputes with the Petitioner. In such circumstances, it is clear that even if Petitioner is to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and it would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Hence, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
7. Petition is allowed.L.P. No. 5/2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Thiruvananthapuram is quashed.
