IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1762 of 2009() ------------------------- (Crime No.794/2004 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------- HAMSA, S/O.SAIDU, PUZHANKARAYILLATH, METHALA, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PRAVEEN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE. 3. SUKUMARAN, S/O.KUMARAN, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1762 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of June,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the absconding accused No.2 in Crime No.794/2004 of Kodungallur Police Station and now pending as C.P.65/2006. Prosecution case was that all the accused due to political rivalry formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with the common object of causing death and inflicting injuries to the prosecution witnesses attacked them and inflicted injuries and thereby committed offences under sections 143,147,148,450,427,326,307,120B read with section 149 of IPC. Accused 1 and 3 to 5 were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after splitting the case as against the absconding petitioner. As per Annexure B judgment the other accused were found not guilty and were acquitted. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash C.P.65/2006 which is pending against the petitioner for committal before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Crl.M.C.1762/2009 2 was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that in the light of the evidence let in S.C.106/2007 there is no possibility of a conviction of the petitioner and if petitioner is to undergo ordeal of a trial, it would only result in waste of valuable time of the court and unnecessary hardship to the petitioner and therefore the case is to be quashed. 4. The fact that the co-accused are acquitted on the evidence let in against them, is not a ground to quash the proceedings as against an absconding accused. Therefore based on the order of acquittal under Annexure B judgment, the case cannot be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that there was a settlement of disputes with the prosecution witnesses and therefore they will not depose against the petitioner and hence the case is to be quashed. First of all, the injured prosecution witnesses did not appear and there is no material to hold that there was a settlement of the dispute with the injured witnesses. Even if there is a settlement as the offences include one under section 307 of IPC the case cannot be quashed applying principles in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19), as held by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008(4) KLT 417). Crl.M.C.1762/2009 3 Petitioner is at liberty to agitate before court that in the light of the judgment under Annexure B he cannot be convicted. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006