IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1641 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CP.NO. 14/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO.54/2003 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- PALLIKKAL RAFEEQUE,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAIN,PALLIKKAL HOUSE,NEAR SEETHINTAY PALLY, MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,(SHO) EDAKKAD POLICE STATION,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1641 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.54 of 2003 of Edakkad Police Station, C.P.No.14 of 2005 and L.P.No.32 of 2005 of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery (for short, "the ACJM”) for offences punishable under Secs.143, 148, 427, 448 and 436 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”). Petitioner request this Court to quash proceeding on the strength of acquittal of the remaining accused as per Annexure-A, judgment in S.C.No.935 of 2005 of the Court of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner was not available for trial along the other accused case against him was included in the long pending register as L.P.No.32 of 2005 and now it is pending committal in C.P.No.14 of 2005 of the Court of ACJM. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of Annexure-A, judgment prosecution against petitioner cannot stand. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that acquittal of remaining accused is no ground to quash the proceeding. Crl.M.C.No.1641 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Case is that petitioner and others formed unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant/PW1 and others on the day of incident at about 2p.m and committed mischief by setting fire to a portion of the building. I have gone through Annexure-A, judgment and find that PWs1 to 3, members of the house in question cited to prove the alleged did not support the prosecution. PW1 is the de facto complainant and the owner of the house She stated that she was asleep, got up on hearing the commotion and found the front door of the house on fire. She could not see any of the culprits. She denied that she had given names of the assailants in her first information statement. She stated that the dispute is settled outside Court. PWs.2 and 3 are the daughter and husband of PW1 cited to prove the alleged incident. They claimed that they could not identify any of the culprits. PWs.1 to 3 who are the only witnesses to the incident claimed that they could not identify any of the culprits. Petitioner is implicated by virtue of Sec.149 of the IPC. Other accused are acquitted under Sec.232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such situation proceeding with the trial of petitioner is of no use and hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Crl.M.C.No.1641 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Proceeding against petitioner (second accused in Crime No.54 of 2003 of Edakkad Police Station) in L.P.No.32 of 2005 and C.P.No.14 of 2005 of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge