IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4596 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CP.8/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANJIRAPPALLY NOW PENDING AS S.C.NO.280/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM. CRIME NO.454/2009 OF ERUMELI POLICE STATION. ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SARATH M.S., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SASI M.S. MELEDATHU VEEDU, PERUNAD MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. TIJO @ TIJOMON THAMPI, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. THAMPI, AZHAKETHU VEEDU, MAMPARA MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. SUJEESH K.S. @ APPU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SURENDRAN, KUZHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, PUTHUKKADA MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH, SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEETHU KRISHNAN, AGED 16, D/O.KARAPPAI, NADUPURATTIL LAYATHIL, LAHA MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., MINOR REP.BY THE MOTHER KARAPPAI, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNAN, NADUPURATTIL LAYATHIL, LAHA MURI, PERUNAD VILALGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SHANI, AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.REJINA, ELAVUMADATHIL HOUSE, LAHA P.O., PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., MINOR REP.BY THE MOTHER REJINA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. E.V.MADHU, ELAVUMADATHIL HOUSE, LAHA P.O., PERUNAD VILALGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. Crl.MC.No. 4596 of 2010 3. SACHU SADASIVAN, AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.MANIYAMMA, NEDUPURATTIL LAYATHIL, LAHA MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., MINOR REP.BY THE MOTHER, MANIYAMMA, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN, NADUPURATHIL LAYATHIL, LAHA MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR, ERUMELI POLICE STATION (DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & DETECTING OFFICER) 5. THE DY.SUPT.OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY (INVESTIGATING OFFICER) 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R4 TO R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNY K.GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4596 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.280/2010 on the file of Sessions Court, Kottayam, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 354 and 363 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(xi) of SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on Annexure-1 final report submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with respondents 1 to 3 were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, when there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 1 to 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 4596/10 2 3. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have no grievance against the petitioners and they did not give any statement before the police and mothers of respondents 1 to 3 also filed affidavits to that effect and in such circumstances, even if they are to be examined, there is no likelihood of adducing any evidence against the petitioners and therefore, no purpose will be served by directing the petitioners to undergo the ordeal of a trial. Hence, the case is to be quashed. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 along with their mothers filed affidavits stating that they have no grievance against the petitioners and they did not give any statement before the police. But, accepting such statements, it is not possible to quash the final report as sought for. The question whether the said version is true or not and whether those affidavits were procured by force or threat CRMC 4596/10 3 are all matters to be considered by the trial court at the time of evidence and based on such evidence, the cognizance taken cannot be quashed. 5. True, respondents 1 to 3, in the light of the affidavits, may not support the prosecution case, when they are to be examined. But, on that ground, a case of this nature cannot be quashed as sought for. Offences alleged against the petitioners cannot be termed purely personal in nature against respondents 1 to 3. Allegation is that respondents 1 to 3, who are students of a school, were taken by the petitioners in a vehicle and when the vehicle was intercepted by the police, they were arrested. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Petition is dismissed. 9th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv