IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 381 of 2006() ----------------------------------- CC.16/2005 of CHIEF JUDITIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): 5TH ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- M. MUTHALIB, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. YOUSUF, `JASEELA MANZIL', ERUVATTY AMSOM, KOZHUR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.T.P.SAJID RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. CHATHOTH JASEELA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. C.K. AHAMMED, MAKRERI VILLAGE, CHATHOTH HOUSE, MUNDALOOR, PERALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRMC. NO.381/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION. A2:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION. A3:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION. A4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC. 16/05 ON 21.11.2005 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY. A5:- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DTD. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No. 381 of 2006 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 ORDER The case against this petitioner was split-up and re-filled as 321/05. The petitioner was the 5th accused in CC.16/05 which was pending before JFCM, Thalassery. The case was filed against him and other accused under Sections 498A and 420 r/w 34 IPC. Though the case was filed in the year 2006, there was no due prosecution. The service was not completed earlier. It was only recently the notice was served on the complainant. The complainant is not represented. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other accused were already acquitted by the learned Magistrate as evidenced by Annexure – 4 judgment. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the marriage between the de facto complainant and the first accused (her husband) was dissolved long back. The learned Magistrate found that the evidence given by PW1 (de facto complainant), her uncle and brother did not disclose any offence. In other words, according to the Crl.M.C.No. 381 of 2006 -: 2 :- learned counsel for the petitioner, the evidence already adduced before the court below did not inspire confidence in the court below. Since the main accused (husband) and all other accused were already acquitted and as that verdict of acquittal was not challenged by the complainant, it would show that the complainant was not at all interested in prosecuting the case against the petitioner, the 5th accused. The fact that the complainant has not entered appearance in this court would also show that she is not intending to prosecute the case against the petitioner. In the result, this petition is allowed. Further proceedings against the petitioner in CC. 321/05 is quashed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. smvd