IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 853 of 2011() ------------------------------------ SC.NO.56/2011 OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM ..... (CR.NO.402/2022 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION) .... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ KANNAN @ SUJANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, R.L.BHAVANAM OTTAPLAMOODU, THAZHUTHALA CHERRY, ADICHANALOOR, KOTTIYAM. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI. SAJJU.S., SRI. H.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND CW1: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. AJIMON, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, AJI BHAVANAM, OTTAPLAMOODU, THAZHUTHALA CHERRY, ADICHANALOOR, KOTTIYAM - 670 016. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.H.HARIKUMAR (KOLLAM) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.853 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.402 of 2002 of Kottiyam Police Station and S.C. No.56 of 2011 of the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam involving offences under Sections 341, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on 02.07.2002 at about 8.30 p.m on account of previous enmity due to the second respondent preferring a complaint against friend of the 4th accused, petitioner and accused 2 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to the second respondent and attempted to cause his death. It is alleged that 4th accused stabbed the second respondent on his abdomen and aimed the knife on his neck which was averted by the second respondent and had the knife fell on the neck, it would have proved fatal. It is submitted by the learned counsel that accused 2 to 4 faced trial and were acquitted by Annexure-A2, judgment in S.C. No.1520 of 2004 under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Pursuant to a settlement CRL.M.C. No.853 of 2011 -: 2 :- reached with second respondent petitioner requests that proceeding against him may be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was absconding and not available for trial along with other accused. 2. It is seen from Annexure-A2 that accused 2 to 4 were acquitted under Sec.232 of the Code obviously for the reason that none of the prosecution witnesses cited to prove the alleged incident supported it. True, acquittal of accused 2 to 4 is not a ground to quash proceeding against petitioner and a prayer in that line cannot also be accepted. But it is seen that the petitioner has settled the dispute with the second respondent as seen from Annexure-A3, affidavit, genuineness of which is confirmed by the counsel for the second respondent. Learned counsel for second respondent also confirmed the settlement. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has taken exception to a statement contained in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that second respondent had not given any statement to the police implicating petitioner in the alleged incident. It is pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that it was the second respondent who had given first information statement. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the course of trial of accused 2 to 4 in S.C. CRL.M.C. No.853 of 2011 -: 3 :- No.1520 of 2004 the second respondent has denied giving any such statement. Even if such a denial is made, if the police officer in the course of discharge of his official duty has recorded statement of the witness and has given evidence in that line, that could be accepted. However I need not pronounce judgment on that question in this proceeding. 4. In view of the settlement reached and in the way prosecution witnesses have given evidence in S.C. No.1520 of 2004 I consider that trial of petitioner would only be a wasteful exercise. I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.402 of 2002 of Kottiyam Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in S.C. No.56 of 2011 of the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv