IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1541 of 2009 ------------------------- CC.240/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- 1. NIKHITH ALIAS NIKHI, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN CHENKUTTY HOUSE, PUTHOOR VAYALA, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. SUJITH CHANDRAN ALIAS SUJITH, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, CHENKUTTY HOUSE, PUTHOOR VAYALA, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT BY ADV. MR.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.V.VIJAYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KARIKKAKAVIL HOUSE, PADINJARETHARA, 16TH MILE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYNAD DISTRICT. 3. S.JACOB, S/O.SEBASTIAN, KOTTAPURATH HOUSE, MANAKKARAMURI, SHASTHANKOTTA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dkr M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1541 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009. O R D E R The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.240/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta. The case was taken cognizance on Annexure D final report submitted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Meenangadi in Crime No.105/2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 341, 323, 294(b) and 332 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Crime No.104/2003 was also registered in respect of the same incident. Annexure A report was filed in that crime. The injured charge witness in Crime No.105/2003 and others are the accused in Crime No.104/2003 and the offences were under Sections 279, 143, 147, 341, 323, 294(b), r/w Crl.M.C.No.1541/2009 5 Section 149, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of that case as C.C.No.256/2004. It is the admitted case that when that case was posted for trial, the parties settled the dispute and consequently the accused therein, namely, respondents 2 and 3 were acquitted. Their settlement arrived at was to withdraw the case as against the petitioners, namely, Crime No.105/2003. The final report in Crime No.105/2003, though prepared earlier was submitted to the Court only after acquittal in C.C.No.256/2004. When that case was not withdrawn, petitioners filed Crl.M.C.No.687/2009 along with Annexure E and F Affidavits of respondents 2 and 3 to the effect that dispute was settled and they did not intend to proceed with the case and therefore C.C.No.240/2008 be quashed. But under Annexure G order this Court dismissed the application finding that an offence under Section 332 is against the society and not Crl.M.C.No.1541/2009 5 against the person with whom the dispute was settled and therefore the case of composition cannot be accepted. But Annexure G order itself provides that petitioners are entitled to file a petition to quash the proceedings under Section 482 on other grounds. This petition is filed thereafter. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure B report submitted by the District Superintendent of Police, Wayanad to the Kerala State Human Rights Commission dated 29-7-2003 in respect of the incident which resulted in registering in Crime No.14/2003 and Crime No.105/2003 explicitly shows the relevant facts. It establishes that the 1st respondent and his pregnant wife along with the mother was proceeding in a Qualis Car towards Kalpetta and the Police party consisting of respondents 2 and 3 and others were proceeding from Crl.M.C.No.1541/2009 5 Kalpetta to Meppadi in a Police Van on 24-5-2003 and the Police Van had hit on the Car causing damages. When 1st petitioner sought settlement of the dispute, the Police personnel were not agreeable and there was scuffle and consequently the incident happened. Annexure B report shows that the entire incident was caused by respondents 2, 3 and others and disciplinary action was initiated against them. It is therefore absolutely clear that the incident was not on account of the fault of the petitioners but that of respondents 2 and 3. 4. Evidently crime against the petitioners were registered so as to pressurize them for a settlement of the other case. Facts disclose that they succeeded in obtaining the matter settled, C.C.No.256/2004 was admittedly settled and the case was acquitted. When the entire facts is appreciated in the proper perspective, it is clear that there is no bonafides in Crl.M.C.No.1541/2009 5 prosecuting the petitioners, especially when respondents 2 and 3, who are responsible for the incident were acquitted consequent to the settlement in C.C.No.256/2004. It would be a futile exercise to undergo the trial in view of these undisputed facts. Under such circumstances, the petition is allowed C.C.No.240/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr