IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 483 of 2009() --------------------------------- SC.180/2004 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- K.SHAMMEER,S/O.KHADER, AGED 28 YEARS, KADAKKADANTAVIDA,MOKERI AMSOM DESOM, MOKERI P.O. BY ADV. MR.P.V.SURENDRANATH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERLA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ZAKEENA K.K., AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.AL.RAFEEQUE, KUTTIKAL VEEDU, POST MOKERI THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. CHAKKA AHAMMED, S/O.MOOSA,CHAKKA VEEDU, KOMMAYAD, KARATTUKUNNU POST, MANANTHAVADI WAYANAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM FOR R1 ADV. MR.M.P.VIJAYAN FOR R2 & R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 483 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.M.A.643/2009 IN CRL.MC.483/2009 DISMISSED 16/02/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 483 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.180/04 against the petitioner now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Sulthan Batheri. The accusation against the petitioner is that he along with one Rafeeque had taken the defacto complainant from Mananthavadi in a bus and thereafter in a van to Kalpetta to Thalassery and at that place the present petitioner left and thereafter on 8.10.97 Refeeque took her to Shoranoor by train. There they spent some time in the Railway Station and thereafter in a room where it is alleged that promising her that he will marry her had sexual intercourse and therefore has committed offence punishable u/Ss. 363 and 376 IPC. This person did not present himself before the trial Court. So the case was split up and the main case against the person namely Rafeeque was tried as Sessions case No.183/01. When the said case was tried the prosecutrix submitted before the Court that she CRL.M.C. 483 OF 2009 -:2:- had been married by the accused and they are living happily. All other witnesses also had turned hostile to the prosecution and therefore the inevitable conclusion was that of an acquittal. 2. A perusal of the entire documents would reveal that there is no specific overt act against this person except the factum of him accompanying the main accused to some point of distance and not thereafter. Really the offensive acts were done not in his presence at all and it was done only after he left the company of the first accused namely Rafeeque. The defacto complainant and the said person had married and they are living happily and all the witnesses had turned hostile. There will not be any purpose now in proceeding against this person because it will be only a wastage of time. The scope of such a matter in a criminal proceedings was considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (4) SCC 675) where the Supreme Court held as follows, “While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular CRL.M.C. 483 OF 2009 -:3:- case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of the case, also quash the proceedings.” 3. As stated by me earlier it will be only an absolute wastage of time and there will not be any materials to connect the accused with any sort of offence and the main accused had already married the defacto complainant and they are living happily. So there is no point in the prosecution being permitted to be continued. Accordingly the Crl.M.C is allowed and I invoke my power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the entire proceedings in S.C.180/04 pending against the petitioner now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Sulthan Batheri. The CRL.M.C. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-