IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 298 of 2011() ------------------------ LPC.101/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG CRIME NO.686/1997 OF HOSDRUG POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS 1 & 2 -------------------------------- 1. SATHAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.M.C.MUHAMMED, KOVVAL, NEAR CHITHARI ELECTRIC OFFICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. HARIS, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHITHARI HOUSE, CHITHARI, PIN 671 315, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & CWS 1& 2(DEFACTO COMPLAINANT& INJURED) ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL KHANI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.C.K.MOIDU, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671001. 3. NAZEER, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671001. ADV. SRI.M.V.BIPIN FOR R2 & R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.298 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 6 in Crime No.686 of 1997 of Hosdurg Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 448 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”) and Section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances to Public Meetings Act (for short “the Act”). Petitioners seek to quash proceedings against them on the strength of an alleged settlement with respondent Nos.2 and 3 and acquittal of some of the accused by Annexure-AIII, judgment. Learned counsel contends that in the light of the evidence given by prosecution witnesses in the trial of the case against remaining accused as seen from Annexure-III, judgment and the deposition of witnesses and in the light of the agreement reached between the parties trial of the case is only a farce and requested to quash the proceedings. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Case is that on 14.12.1996 at about 11 p.m. petitioners and others formed unlawful assembly, committed rioting armed with deadly weapons and caused damage to the auditorium where a programme was going at the instance of Chithari Friends Club. It is also alleged that petitioners voluntarily caused hurt to the defacto complainants and others. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 Crl.MC No.298/2011 2 faced trial in C.C.No.308 of 2001 and it resulted in Annexure-AIII, judgment. Since the witnesses did not support the prosecution that case ended in acquittal. It is submitted by learned counsel that only PW2 sustained injury in the alleged incident and he also did not support the prosecution case as seen from Annexure-AII(a). 3. That, some of the other accused who faced trial are acquitted is no ground to quash proceedings against petitioners. I must bear in mind that the incident occurred in the year 1996 and even when some of the accused were tried in the year 1997, petitioners were not available and in the year 2011 they request this Court to quash proceedings against them. It is true that as seen from Annexures-AII and AII(a) PWs 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution while examined as witnesses in C.C.No.1369 of 1997. I stated that that is no ground to quash proceedings against petitioners. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed affidavits in their attempt to show that no offence under the Act is made out. On the face of the allegations it is not necessary for me to go into that question at this stage. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to think that this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Crl.MC No.298/2011 3 should quash proceeding against petitioners notwithstanding that there is a settlement with respondent Nos.2 and 3. Offences alleged affect public tranquility and peace. Petitioners have to face trial. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. Learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial untrammelled by any observation or finding in this order. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks