IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3907 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- [CC.NO.317/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI, CRIME NO. 131/2004 OF THE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 3, 5 AND 6: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BAIJU.K, S/O. CHELLI, KUMMINIPARAMBU, PALLIKKAL, KARIPOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ALUGATHODIKA HASKAR, S/O. CHERIYA MUHAMMED, MULLAMADAKKAL HOUSE, THARAYITTAL, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ALIPRA MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE, S/O. HASSAN HAJI, ERAYATTU HOUSE, MUNNEKKATTU, PALLIKKAL, KARIPOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND INJURED: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31. 2. RAJAN BABU, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KUMMINIPARAMMAL HOUSE, UNNIYALPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RAGHAVAN, S/O. KEERAN KUMMINIPARAMMAL HOUSE, UNNIYALPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. CRL.M.C. NO. 3907/2009-A: 4. PARAMBAN SANKARAN, S/O. KEERAN, KUMMINIPARAMMAL HOUSE, UNNIYALPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. LALU MAHESH, S/O. KEERAN, KUMMINIPARAMMAL HOUSE, UNNIYALPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. DEVAKI, W/O. RAJAN BABU, KUMMINIPARAMMAL HOUSE, UNNIYALPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. KANAKKAPALLAYAN VALLI, W/O. RAGHAVAN, KUMMINIPARAMMAL HOUSE, UNNIYALPARAMBA, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM, R2 TO R7 BY ADV. SMT. SHEEBA.M.T. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO. 3907 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14th December 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are original accused 10, 18 and 19 in C.C.35/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Manjeri. Prosecution case was that on 7/3/2004 at about 7.30 p.m, 21 accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of trespassing into a hotel at Unnialparamb Angadi and in furtherance of the common object armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into hotel room and inflicted injuries on respondents 2 to 7 and thereby committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 325, 326, 427 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioners and accused 6,7 and 16 were absconding the case as against them was split up and re-filed as C.C.200/2008. Remaining accused were tried by the learned Magistrate. By Annexure-C judgment those accused were acquitted. Annexure-C judgment shows that respondents 2 to 7, though examined as Pws.1 to 6 turned hostile to the Crmc 3907/09 2 prosecution and did not support the prosecution case at all. According to the petitioners, accused 6,7 and 16 were subsequently acquitted when they were tried in C.C.200/2008 and now only the case as against the petitioners remains as C.C.317/2009. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against the petitioners contending that in view of the order of acquittal as against the co-accused, as well as settlement of the disputes with respondents 2 to 7, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 2 to 7 who appeared through a counsel and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-C judgment in C.C.35/2007 establishes that when 15 co-accused were tried by the learned Magistrate, respondents 2 to 7, the injured turned hostile to the prosecution and consequent to their evidence, no other witness was examined and learned Public Prosecutor had given up examination of remaining witnesses and the co-accused were acquitted. Annexure-D affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 7 establishes that there has been an amicable Crmc 3907/09 3 settlement of the disputes with petitioners. In view of the settlement, even if petitioners are to be tried, chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak or rather impossible. In such circumstances, no purpose will be served by directing petitioner to undergo ordeal of a trial except waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.C.317/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Manjeri as against petitioners is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.