IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2518 of 2009() ------------------------- SC.18/1995 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL CP.13/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... (CRIME NO.86/93 OF ANJUTHENGU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT) .......... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, POTTANTE MUKKU, UPPUVILAKAM VEEDU, VILABHAGAM, VETTUR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANJUTHENGU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MINI, D/O.RAJAN, MAVILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VILABHAGAM, NEDUNGANDA, VETTUR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR R2 BY ADVS. MR.SURESH KUMAR, SMT.M.K.ASWATHI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2518 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 19th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner was third accused in C.P.13/1994 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala. There were altogether five accused. Prosecution case was that on 11/11/1993 first accused kidnapped second respondent who was then aged 14 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents and thereafter committed rape at the house of accused 4 and 5 and wrongfully confined second respondent in their house and accused 2 and 3 helped first accused to kidnap second respondent and also to commit rape and all of them thereby committed offences under Sections 366(A), 368, 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioner was absconding, case as against the other four accused were committed to Sessions court and they were tried by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Attingal in S.C.18/1995. As per Annexure-3 judgment dated 19/8/1995, the four accused were acquitted finding them not guilty, under CRMC 2518/09 2 Section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The case as against petitioner was transferred to the register of long pending cases and is pending as L.P.14/1995 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Varkala. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against the petitioner contending that the dispute with second respondent, the prosecutrix has already been settled and second respondent is now living with first accused as his wife and in the light of the order of acquittal as against the other co-accused and for the reason of settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Annexure-4 affidavit of the second respondent is filed to the effect that after trial the remaining four accused were acquitted and she is living with first accused as his wife and they are leading a peaceful married life and she has no grievance against the petitioner and in such circumstances, the case as against petitioner is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 2518/09 3 4. Though case as against petitioner is now pending in long pending register, as is clear from Annexure-3 judgment the only allegation as against the petitioner is that he along with other two accused helped first accused to kidnap second respondent, who was then aged 14 years, and thereafter helped first accused to commit rape. Annexure-3 judgment shows that first accused who allegedly kidnapped and committed rape on the second respondent, was acquitted after trial. It also shows that after trial second accused who along with petitioner allegedly helped first accused to kidnap and to commit rape, was acquitted. It also shows that accused 4 and 5 who allegedly confined second respondent in their house and enabled first respondent to commit rape on her, was also acquitted after trial. It is also clear from Annexure-4 affidavit of second respondent that second respondent is now living with first accused as his wife and she has no grievance whatsoever against the petitioner. In such circumstances, though an order of acquittal of co-accused by itself is not a ground to quash the case as against an absconding accused, facts of the case would reveal that even if petitioner is to be directed CRMC 2518/09 4 to undergo the ordeal of a trial, chance of a successful prosecution is very bleak. It would only result in waste of valuable time of the court. Hence it is not in the interest of justice to prosecute the petitioner further as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)). In such circumstances, to secure justice the case is to be quashed. Petition is allowed. L.P.14/1995 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Varkala as against petitioner is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.