IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 616 of 2011() ---------------------------------- S.C.310/2004 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.23/2003 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- SHAJI SOMAN, SHAJI BHAVANAM, PANAYIL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU. 2. SURESH, THADATHIL PADEETTATHIL, PALAMEL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK.PIN-688 711 3. SHAJI, THADATHIL PADEETTATHIL, PALAMEL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK.PIN- 688 711 4. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.616 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is first accused in Crime No.23 of 2003 of Nooranadu Police Station and S.C.No.143 of 2009 of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara for offences punishable under Secs.323, 324, 452 and 308 r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against him on the strength of a settlement reached with the de facto complainant/respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Case is that on 18.01.2003 petitioner and others trespassed into the house of CW1 and attacked him with stick and sword. It is alleged that the sword was aimed at his neck in an attempt to kill him. CW1 blocked it with his right hand and sustained injuries. Learned counsel submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. 3. I have gone through Annexure-A2, judgment dated January 28, 2009 in S.C.No.310 of 2004 where remaining accused faced trial and were acquitted under Sec.232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”). It is seen from that judgment that CW1/PW1 supported the prosecution but Crl.M.C.No.616 of 2011 -: 2 :- claimed that he could not identify the assailants. That judgment cannot be made use of by the petitioner who was not in the dock at the time of trial. It is true that according to the petitioner he has settled the dispute with respondent Nos.2 and 3 but I must consider nature of the offence alleged. It is a case of alleged trespass into the house of CW1 and attempt to cause his death with sword. Having regard to the nature of offence I am not inclined to think that this Court should interfere with the matter under Sec.482 of the Code. 4. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is abroad and he may be granted exemption from appearance in Court. It is submitted that in case identity of petitioner became necessary in the course of evidence petitioner is prepared to appear in Court. Certainly that is a matter which the trial court has to decide. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to move appropriate application in the court below seeking exemption and if any such application is preferred learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall consider the same and pass appropriate order. Resultantly with the above direction this petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-