IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3316 of 2007() ------------------------- CP.108/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------------------------- UDAYARAJ, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O D.SASI, 'DARHANA', KARIKKADAVU, PACHALLOOR, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. MANOJKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O R.GOPINATHAN, TC-67/324-I, THOPPADI MIDHULA HOUSE, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.3316 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.179/2006 of Thiruvallam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 IPC, seeks to quash Annexure B final report and all further proceedings in C.P.No.108/2007 pending before the J.F.C.M- -II, Neyyantinkara. 2. During the stage of investigation when the petitioner sought anticipatory bail before this Court by filing B.A.No.1071/2007, it was reported on behalf of the de facto complainant appearing through counsel that the de facto complainant had filed an affidavit before the Investigating Officer to the effect that the petitioner herein was not the person responsible for the injuries inflicted on him. A copy of such affidavit was also produced before this Court. Annexure B herein is the copy of the said affidavit. Taking note of this, in Annexure A order dated 28.8.07 passed in the application for anticipatory bail, this Court observed that if the petitioner had Crl.M.C.No. 3316 of 2007 2 no role in the occurrence in question as admitted by the de facto complainant, the petitioner could not have entertained any apprehension of arrest or harassment at the instance of the Thiruvallam police. In Annexure A order this Court observed further as follows: The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner has sought deletion from the array of accused in the light of the affidavit submitted by the de facto complainant there would be no difficulty to delete the petitioner from the array of accused. If these are the state of affairs, there is no reason why the petitioner should apprehend his arrest or harassment by the Police. Recording the submissions made on behalf of the de facto complainant and the Investigating Officer, this petition is closed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of such an affidavit having being filed, the petitioner has been charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer for the aforementioned offences. Crl.M.C.No. 3316 of 2007 3 4. The learned Public Prosecutor attempted to justify the charge sheet by submitting that, even though the de facto complainant has stated that the petitioner herein had no role to play in inflicting injuries on him, there are eye witnesses on the occurrence who have given statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, regarding the occurrence and the role played by the petitioner in inflicting injuries on the de facto complainant. 5. It may be true that independent witnesses have given statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, in respect of the occurrence. But when the alleged victim himself has admitted that the petitioner herein was not responsible for inflicting injuries on him., the resultant prosecution will be an exercise in futility and no court is going to believe the so called occurrence witnesses and disbelieve the injured de facto complainant. Hence, to allow the continuance of C.P.No.108/07 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Neyyattinkara and to permit the case to be committed to the court of sessions will be an abuse of the process of the court, besides an exercise in futility. Crl.M.C.No. 3316 of 2007 4 Under these circumstances, the proceedings in C.P.No.108/2007 on the file of J.F.C.M-II, Neyyattinkara are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall not be placed for trial on Annexure D charge sheet. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj