IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4064 of 2011() ------------------------------ SC.59/2010 of PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------- AMBUJAKSHAN, S/O. LATE DHARMADEVAN, PALLATH HOUSE, PANJAPPILLY DESOM, KAIPAMANGALAM, KOOROKUZHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO. 4064/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE AI :COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.19.9.06 OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, IRINJALAKKUDA IN SC NO.14/2004. ANNEXURE AII:COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PW1 WHO IS THE INJURED. ANNEXURE AIII:COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PW2 WHO IS ALSO ANOTHER INJURED. ANNEXURE AIV:COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PW3 WHO IS THE EYE WITNESS. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4064 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioner was the first accused in S.C.No.17/2004 of Principal Asst. Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. He and another accused (Sudeep) stood charged for offences punishable under Secs.323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 r/w 34 IPC. The 2nd accused Sudeep faced trial and he was acquitted by the trial court. A1- the petitioner herein was absconding and so the case against him was split up and refiled as S.C.No.59/2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of S.C.No.17/2004, the entire matter was settled and PW1, the injured deposed before the court that he did not see or identify the assailants who inflicted the injuries. It was also deposed by him before the trial court that the entire matter was settled. PW2 also stated Crl.M.C. No.4064 of 2011 -: 2 :- that he could not identify the assailants. He also supported the version that the matter was settled. PW3, the other witness turned hostile. As such the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the evidence given by the injured and two other witnesses no purpose will be served by proceeding with the trial against this petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the entire substratum of the prosecution case stands shattered and that no case can be built up on the evidence that may be adduced by PWs.1 to 3. In other words, according to the learned counsel the trial as against the petitioner herein would be a sheer exercise in futility and as such the proceedings against this petitioner may be quashed. 3. I have gone through the copies of the depositions of PWs.1 to 3 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am convinced that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the trial against this petitioner. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Further Crl.M.C. No.4064 of 2011 -: 3 :- proceeding against this petitioner in S.C.No.59/2010 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakkuda is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt