IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/8TH KARTHIKA, 1936 [CASE NUMBER] () AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN [CASE NUMBER] of SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY AGAINST THE ORDERIN [CASE NUMBER] PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED nO.12: [ENTITY] S/[ENTITY], PONNAMKAI HOUSE KATTAMBILLI P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR, PIN: 670015. BY ADVS.SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN SRI.K.K.MUHAMMAD FOUZ RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS 2 TO 4: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. [ENTITY], AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KUNHAMBU, NARIKKUTTI HOUSE, KATTAMBILLI P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR, PIN: 670015. 3. [ENTITY], AGED 51 YEARS S/O.HAMEED, K.P.HOUSE, KATTAMBILLI P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR, PIN: 670015. 4. [ENTITY], AGED 37 YEARS S/[ENTITY], M.A.HOUSE, KATTAMBILLI P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR, PIN:670015. R2-4 BY ADV. [ENTITY] R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: [CASE NUMBER] () APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN [CASE NUMBER]. ANNEXURE-A2: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 30th October, 2014 O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the original 12th accused in [CASE NUMBER] of Valapattanam Police Station registered under [SECTION] of [ACT] on the complaint of one [ENTITY], an office bearer of the branch committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Kattamballi, that the accused trespassed into the office of the party at Kattamballi as part of a criminal design made by them, and set fire to some movable items in the party office. Cognizance on the final report submitted by the police was taken in the Court of Session, Thalassery as [CASE NUMBER]. The case against the original accused Nos.5 and 15 was not committed to the Court of Session at that time. Of the other 18 accused, 16 persons faced trial in [CASE NUMBER] and obtained a judgment of acquittal under [SECTION] of the [ACT], when all the material witnesses including the complainant turned hostile in view of an amicable settlement arrived at out of court between the leaders of the parties. The case against the original accused Nos.1 and 2 was split up in the Court of Session when they consistently remained absent. The case against the petitioner herein, the 12th accused was later committed to the Court of Session, which is now pending as [CASE NUMBER] before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. The petitioner now seeks orders under [SECTION] of the [ACT] quashing the prosecution on the ground that the whole dispute stands settled, and that in view of the acquittal of the others in the absence of any evidence or incriminating circumstance, the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case.
2. On a perusal of Annexure-A1 judgment in [CASE NUMBER], I find that 16 accused in the case obtained judgment of acquittal under [SECTION] of the [ACT] when all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution, including the person who made complaint, turned hostile. Of course, a settlement was reported to the trial court but it was not acceptable as composition because the major offence is not compoundable under the law. The three persons examined in the trial court in [CASE NUMBER] are respondents 2 to 4 in this proceeding. They have filed a joint affidavit to the effect that they have settled the the whole dispute with the accused on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides, and that the parties have no grievance or complaint now. I am well satisfied that the whole dispute is practically settled, and the material witnesses turned hostile during trial in the Court of Session in [CASE NUMBER] in view of such an amicable settlement out of court. No doubt, these witnesses will not in any manner support the prosecution and the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case, if the proceeding against the petitioner herein goes to trial. In so many decisions like [PRECEDENT] and in [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non- compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, or if continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. I am definite that continuance of prosecution against the petitioner herein, in the above circumstances, will be a sheer waste of time.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution pending against the petitioner herein in [CASE NUMBER] before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (II), Kannur will stand quashed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], and the petitioner will stand released from prosecution.
[ENTITY] JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge