IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.241/2003 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- VINEESH VIJAYAN, S/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADANGUMPURATHU HOUSE, THURUTHIKADU, KALLOPPARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. HARIKUMAR, GANESH BHAVAN, AMBATTUBHAGOM MURI, KALLOOPPARA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.JEPH JOSEPH. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1229 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 4th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was seventh accused in S.C.653/2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-I, Pathanamthitta. As petitioner and fifth accused were absconding, case against them was split up and re-filed as S.C.254/2007. Other six accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By Annexure-A3 judgment, those accused were acquitted. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner as L.P.11/2008, contending that entire disputes with second respondent, the injured de facto complainant, were settled Crmc 1229/10 2 amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint petition with the petitioner stating that entire disputes were subsequently settled amicably and consequent to the settlement he has no grievance against the petitioner and they are now neighbours and hence the proceedings is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-A2 final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police establishes that prosecution case is that on account of the attitude of the second respondent, directing eight accused not to continue physical Crmc 1229/10 3 training of RSS within the temple compound, at about 3.30 p.m on 21/8/2003, while second respondent was proceeding in a motor cycle, at about 50 meters to the north of Komalam bridge, accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of wrongfully restraining second respondent and cause his death and hurt and in furtherance of their common object, blocked the road and thereafter beat him and kicked him and caused hurt and thereby committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Though Annexure-A2 final report shows that as per the wound certificate issued by the doctor, after examination of the second respondent, it only discloses that there was tenderness on the left shoulder and abdomen. Offence under Section Crmc 1229/10 4 308 of Indian Penal Code is alleged on the allegation that if second respondent had not avoided the kick on his lower abdomen, death would have been caused. Annexure-A3 judgment shows that when six of the eight accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and second respondent de facto complainant was examined, he even denied the statement in the first information and did not give any evidence against any of the accused. So also, the two eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Annexure-A3 judgment shows that finding that there was no incriminating evidence warranting questioning the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted those accused. Joint statement filed by the second respondent with the petitioner establish Crmc 1229/10 5 that there has been settlement of all the disputes with the petitioner. Consequently, even if petitioner is to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial and second respondent is to be examined, there is no likelihood of an incriminating evidence against him. In such circumstances, it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the Court. Petition is allowed. L.P.11/2008 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Pathanamthitta is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.