IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 157 of 2010() ----------------------------------- SC.1247/2009 of ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK-II, TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONER/A2 ------------------------ SHAIJU, S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, PERAYATHUMUKAL, MANICKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS/CW2 ------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SWATHI SUNDER, AGED 21, D/O. LATHA, SIJULAYAM VEEDU, NELLANADU VILLAGE, NELLANADU MURI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. R2 BY ADV. MR.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.157 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the third accused in S.C.No. 609/2006 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. As accused 2 and 3 were absconding, the case as against them was split up and refiled as S.C.No.1247/2009. Accused 1 and 4 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By Annexure-B judgment, those accused were acquitted. Prosecution case is that on 19.7.2004 at about 7 a.m., with the object of committing rape on the second respondent, first accused enticed her by promising to marry her and with the knowledge of the fourth accused and assistance of accused 2 and 3, kidnapped her in car KL-02/B 502, belonging to the first accused and driven by the petitioner, brought her to a thatched shed at Kottavasal of Schencottah Taluk and first accused committed rape on her. Thereafter, fourth accused, knowing that first accused committed rape on the second respondent, brought the first accused and second respondent in Tata India car driven by him to House No. AP.11/132 and from there also, first accused committed rape on the second respondent and all the accused, CRMC 157/10 2 thereby, committed offences under Sections 212, 363 and 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed by the original third accused to quash the proceedings as against him contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled and the prosecution case is fictitious and even if petitioner is tried, there is no likelihood of a conviction and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and field an affidavit stating that entire disputes between her and the first accused were settled amicably and first accused had married her and she is now living as the wife of the first accused and the defacto complainant Sunder, her father, is no more and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that first accused kidnapped the second respondent with the aid and assistance of accused 2 to 4 and committed rape on her and thereby, all the accused committed the offences. First accused, who allegedly committed rape on the CRMC 157/10 3 second respondent, later married the second respondent and they are now living as husband and wife. Accused 1 and 4 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and by Annexure-B judgment, they were acquitted. In view of the order of acquittal as against accused 1 and 4, what remains as against the petitioner is that he aided and assisted the first accused to kidnap the second respondent and to commit rape on her. When, based on the evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence to find that the accused committed either kidnapping or rape, even if petitioner is to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, in the light of Annexure-C affidavit filed by the second respondent, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. At best, it would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. S.C.No.1247/2009 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioner is quashed. 17th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv