IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2016/13TH VAISAKHA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 2692 of 2016 () LPC 81/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 91/2007 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : LATHEEF, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT DODDEMANA, PATHOOR VILLAGE, MANJESWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE : 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT BADIMALE HOUSE, BADIMALE, PATHOOR VILLAGE, MANJESWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.USMAN, RESIDING AT SUMAYYA MANZIL, RESIDING AT DURGALAPPU, BALAPPUNNI VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LILLY LESSLY R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY MENON THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: bp Crl.MC.No. 2692 of 2016 () APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 91/2007 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 91/2007 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE 2(A): COPY OF MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 91/2007 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE 4: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE R2. ANNEXURE 5: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE R3. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE bp [ENTITY] J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl[CASE NUMBER] of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 3rd May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER
1. The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in [CASE NUMBER] of Manjeshwar police station which is registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein, for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT]. The investigation was completed and Annexure II Final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the case was numbered as [CASE NUMBER].
2. It appears that the petitioner, who was the 4th accused in the aforesaid case did not appear before the Trial Court. Case against him was split up. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the case against him is now included in the Long Pending Register and is numbered as [CASE NUMBER]. As against accused [CASE NUMBER] Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, trial was proceeded with and the accused were acquitted under [SECTION] of [ACT] The case against the petitioner was initially refiled as CC No.[SECTION] of 2008, but later was included in the Long Pending Register.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was employed at Bombay and was unable to face trial. It is further submitted that after the acquittal of the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 mediation talks were held at the instance of well wishers and the matter has been settled. Annexure 4 and 5 are the affidavits filed by the de facto complainant and the injured witness asserting that the matter has been settled and that they are not inclined to proceed with the matter as against the petitioner herein.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner , the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
[CASE NUMBER] 5 . I have anxiously gone through the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. After evaluating the evidence in detail, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the matter has been settled and there is no evidence to connect the accused with the Crime. It is on the basis of the said finding that the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were acquitted. In [PRECEDENT] and also [PRECEDENT] it has been held that when substratum of the case is destroyed, there is no point in pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused. In the instant case the injured witness and the de facto complainant have filed separate affidavits asserting that they have entered into an amicable settlement with the petitioner and they do not wish to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
6. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, I am of the considered opinion [CASE NUMBER] that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice. It has been held by the Apex Court, that the High Court, while exercising powers under [SECTION] will be justified in quashing cases involving even non-compoundable offence if the disputes are really private in nature and no public interests are involved provided that the offenses are not of the gravely objectionable variety. I am convinced that the extraordinary powers under [SECTION] can be invoked as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and other cases.
7. It is also felt that quashing of the instant proceeding would bring about peace and secure ends of justice. No purpose will be served in subjecting the parties to the ordeal of a protracted trial in view of the settlement. It will only enure to waste valuable judicial hours. I am, [CASE NUMBER] therefore, of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioner can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
8. This Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. The proceedings as against the petitioner in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod arising out of [CASE NUMBER] of Manjeshwar Police Station, is hereby quashed.
[ENTITY] JUDGE das