IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 271 of 2011() ----------------------------- (L.P.C. NO.48/2007 (CRIME NO.65/2001 OF DHARMADOM POLICE STATION) OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT ADHOC III, THALASSERY) .... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- KOROTH HARIS, S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, KOROTH HOUSE, ERANHOLI AMSOM, VADAKKUMBAD DESOM, MADATHUMBHAGAM, THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S):COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DHARMADOM POLICE STATION,KANNUR, REPRESENTING STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.271 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused No.9 in Crime No.65 of 2001 of Dharmadom Police Station and L.P.No.48 of 2007 of learned Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Thalassery for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 427, 435 and 436 r/w Sec.149 of the Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 02.04.2001 at about 11 p.m petitioner and other accused formed unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, damaged Autorikshaw of CW8, set fire to the Autorikshaw of CW7, caused loss to them and thereby committed the above said offences. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against him on the ground that the allegations against him are ill-founded and that case against other accused were tried and they were acquitted by Annexure-A3, judgment. Learned counsel requested that in the circumstances proceedings against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well. 2. The plea for quashing the proceedings is based on Annexure-A3, judgment in S.C.No.275 of 2002 against other accused in the case. It is seen from the judgment that Crl.M.C.No. 271of 2011 -: 2 :- prosecution witnesses cited to prove the incident supported the case but learned Sessions Judge thought that there is no sufficient corroboration of their evidence and accordingly those accused who faced trial were acquitted. That however is not a ground to quash proceedings against petitioner in view of the decision in Moosa Vs. Sub Inspector of Police (2006(1) KLT 552). In the light of the said decision and also considering facts and circumstances of the case including the reason for acquittal of other accused in S.C.No.275 of 2002 I am not persuaded to think that this is a case where this court is required to interfere under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against petitioner. Petitioner has to face the trial. This criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-